^w  OF  mNcifS;^ 


•Logical  se»^ 


THE    STANDARD    ^ERlES.^         /0^  ^' 


'^ 


A    COMMENTARY 


^M"AR  31  1939   ^ 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  LU 


BY 

F.    OODET, 

BOCTOR  AKD  PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY,  NEUCHATBt. 


TRANSLATED    FliOJI    THE    SECOND    FRENCH   EDITION    BY 

E .  W.  SHALDERS  and  M.  D.  CUSIN. 


WITH  PREFACE  AND  NOTES  TO  THE  AMERICAN  EDITION  BY 
JOHN   HALL,  D.D. 

JEfiirO  auction. 

NEW  YORK : 

FUNK  &   WAGNALLS,   Publisheks, 

18  AND  20  AsTOR  Place. 

♦  1890. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1887,  by 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE  OF  THE  A:\IERICAN  EDITOR. 

TnE  immt'rliate  ocrasion  for  the  issue  of  a  separate  commcntur}'  on  Luke's  Gospel 
•s  found  in  the  fact  lliat  from  it  are  taken  the  ISabbath-scliool  lessons  of  the  Inter- 
national uniform  series  for  the  former  half  of  the  year  on  which  we  are  so  soon  toenler. 
"Wlien  it  is  remembered  how  many  millions  of  pupils  receive  instruction  according 
to  this  widel3'-acceptpd  arrangement,  it  will  not  seem  unimportant  that  liuudreds  of 
thousands  of  teachers— many  of  them  busily  engaged  in  ordinary  life — should  have 
all  possible  aid  in  the  work  of  preparing  themselves  to  teach.  Who  does  not  crave 
a  blessing  on  them  in  their  self-denying  work  ?  Let  us  ask  that  He  whose  word  they 
employ  as  the  educating  spiritual  power,  will  make  this  work  one  of  the  forms  iu 
which  tiie  blessing  will  cume  to  them. 

But  it  is  not  only  such  Christian  laborers  who  are  now  interested  in  securing  aid  to 
a  full  understanding  of  Luke's  Gospel.  It  is  a  matter  for  true  rejoicing  that,  as  the 
school  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  closest  connection  with  the  Church,  and  doing  a  part  of 
the  Church's  work,  ministers  labor  iu  so  many  forms  to  increase  the  power  of  their 
fellow-toilers  by  piinted  and  oral  e.xpositiou  of  the  lessons,  and  in  many  instances  by 
systematic  treatment  of  the  coming  Sabbath- school  lesson  at  the  week-day  service. 
This  is  done  iu  many  cases  where  ministers  are  far  removed  from  libraries  and  from 
the  stimulus  of  literary  fellowship,  and  where  also  the  means  at  their  disposal  make 
it  difficult  for  them  to  procure  expensive  theological  or  exegelical  works.  To  bring 
such  within  their  easier  reach  is  not  unworthy  of  effort  :  their  power  for  good  as 
religious  educators  is  thus  increased  iu  this  and  in  every  other  department  of  their 
ditficult  but  benelicent  labors. 

At  lirst  sight  it  might  seem  as  it'  the  commentary  of  3L  Godet  were  too  voluminous 
and  too  comprehensive  in  its  plan  to  be  of  use  to  Sabbath-school  teachers.  But  there 
are  considerations  to  be  taken  into  account  on  the  other  side.  («)  No  one  un- 
acquainted practically  with  this  great  agency  of  our  time  has  any  idea  of  the  im- 
mense advance  in  biblical  knowledge  made  during  the  past  decade,  in  which  uniform- 
ity of  topic  enabled  publishing  houses  and  societies  to  provide  the  best  help  for 
teachers,  (b)  To  keep  a  high  standard  of  attainment  and  effort  before  this  great  body 
of  laborers  is  desirable  in  itself.  That  all  do  not  reach  the  ideal  qualification  is  no 
reason  for  withdrawing  the  means  toward  it  which  a  certain  proportion  can  and  will 
employ,  (c)  The  ideas  of  Paulus,  Strauss,  Renan  and  other  authors  of  similar  ten- 
dency are  being  diffused,  and  are  presented  witli  more  or  less  show  of  learning,  and 
especially  of  "  culture"  and  "  enlightenment,"  by  many  who  do  not  have  them  from 
the  originals,  and  to  man}''  who  never  come  in  contact  with  the  works  as  a  whole, 
but  only  in  the  unciualified  eulogies  which  accompany  their  names  when  they  are 
bemg  used  against  evangelical  interpretation. 

It  is  desirable  in  the  highest  degree  that  intelligent  Christians  who  are  teachers  of 
others  should  know  of  an  "  antidote"  to  the  "  bane"  of  what  Godit  concisely  calls 
"criticism"  throughout  his  work.  This  consideration  will  reconcile  any  intelligent 
reader  who  has  learned  to  identify  himself  with  the  cause  of  the  truth  to  many 
portions  of  this  conmientary  devoted  to  the  exposure  of  the  shallow,  arbitrary,  incon- 
sistent, and  arrogant  way  in  which  Rationalism  dealn  with  Scripture.  It  is  gnod  for 
such  readers  to  understand  that,  though  uot  themselves  able  to  grapple  with  such 


iv  CO-MMENTAliY    OJS'    ST.   LUKE. 

critics,  nor  indeed  called  upon  to  do  it,  they  have  been  dealt  with,  not  only  by  the 
devout  but  by  the  learned,  and  that  here  as  elsewhere,  if  a  Utile  scholarship  leads 
away  from  intelligent  simple  faith,  more  scholarship  brings  back  to  it.  That  Greek, 
Latin,  and  Hebrew  are  quoted  will  not  be  an  objection  to  the  work,  especially  as  a 
translation  fur  the  most  part  accompanies  the  quotations. 

Not  at  all  as  though  the  present  writer  were  qualified  and  entitled,  by  position 
or  bj'  attainments,  to  commend  Professor  Godet's  work,  but  with  the  view  to  deepen 
hopeful  and  expectant  interest  in  it  at  the  outset,  a  few  considerations  suggested  by  a 
very  thorough  and  careful  reading  of  every  page  of  it  are  here  concisely  stated.  In 
the  Protestant  churches  of  France  and  Switzerland  we  cannot  but  feel  on  many 
grounds  a  deep  interest.  This  work  has  been  among  them — as  the  work  of  one  of 
their  own  children — for  nearly  twelve  years,  with  ever-widening  influence  for  good. 
There  is  no  name  among  them  more  trusted  than  that  of  its  author,  and  that  name  is 
now  a  possession  of  all  the  churches.  He  had  already  proved  his  capacity  for  such 
a  task  as  the  interpretation  of  Luke,  by  his  previous  work  on  John's  Gospel,  and  he 
felt  the  importance  and  the  fitness  of  following  up  that  work  by  a  commentary  on 
one  of  the  Synoptists. 

There  are  many  reasons  why  such  a  writer  should  decide  on  Luke  when  he  has 
to  make  a  choice.  Luke's  is  the  Gospel  for  the  Gentiles  ;  it  is  the  Gospel  in  which 
Jesus  is  seen  as  the  Saviour  of  men  as  men.  It  is  marked  (as  Bernard  in  his  admira- 
ble Bampton  lectures  on  the  "Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New  Testament"  has 
shown)  by  "  breadth  of  human  sympathy  and  special  fitness  for  the  Gentile  mind," 
just  as  is  that  of  Matthew  for  the  Jew  inquiring  after  the  evidences  of  Christ's 
Messiahship,  and  that  of  John  for  the  Christian,  forced  by  the  progress  of  thought  to 
discriminate  between  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  refinements  eagerly  and  often 
amicably  identified  in  form  with  its  divine  elements. 

Professor  Godet  has  not  written  for  professed  theologians,  nor  has  he  aimed  at 
embodying  in  his  work  those  devout  reflections  of  which  Scott,  ISIatthew  Henry,  and — 
in  their  own  peculiar  way — the  commentaries  edited  by  Lange,  are  depositories.  He 
Las  aimed  at  giving  the  connection  and  meaning  of  the  narrative,  and  as  he  proceeds, 
at  brushing  aside  the  cobwebs  which  Rationalist  or  mythical  interpreters  heap  on  the 
inspired  page.  He  does  not  ignore  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  enjoyed  by  the 
writers,  but  at  the  same  time  he  is  not  afraid  to  follow  the  critics  a-  tliey  examine  and 
pronounce  upon  the  details  of  that  human  side,  which  we  have  in  the  written,  as  we 
have  also  in  the  Incarnate,  Word. 

If  it  be  alleged,  as  it  may  truly  be,  that  our  author's  arguments  are  often  subtle, 
especially  when  dealing  with  the  class  of  questions  belonging  to  the  liarmonj-  of  liio 
Gospels,  and  the  assumption  of  one  original  document  from  which  the  Sjnoplists 
culled  at  pleasure,  it  is  also  true  that  they  are  convincing.  The  student  of  the  book 
will  moreover  be  rewarded  for  the  time  and  pains  bestowed  on  the  argument,  by  the 
knowledge  of  many  an  unintended  corroboration  of  Gospel  narrative,  interesting  in 
this  relation,  and  often  interesting  on  its  own  account.  Examples  nay  be  cited,  like 
the  College  of  Rome  in  the  days  of  the  Emperor  (p.  11),  which  had  supervision 
of  physicians,  and  the  license  of  which  implied  literary  culture  and  professional  at- 
tainment on  the  part  of  its  possessor.  The  "  beloved  physician"  is,  it  might  have 
been  presumed  beforehand,  in  these  respects  just  such  as  we  are  bound  to  infer  from 
his  writings.  But  the  discussion  in  which  our  author,  in  pursuit  of  his  plan,  fre- 
quently engages  has  many  incidental  attractions  to  a  lover  of  God's  truth.     If  Ration- 


COilMENTAKV    ON    .ST.   LLKK.  V 

alism  be  well  founded,  llien  absolute  agreement  ought  to  mark  its  conclusions,  and 
perfect  harmon^'^  should  prevail  among  ils  exponents.  Professor  Godet  never  shrinks 
from  showing  how  widely  apart  the  very  men  go  who  allege  that  the  whole  tiling  is 
so  plain — so  remote  from  I  he  region  of  the  mysterious  and  supernatural — that  it  must 
appear  at  once  to  any  eulightered  intellect.  (See  for  illustiatiou  pp.  24-2G  ;  144, 
145.  etc.) 

Nor  is  the  discussion — commonly  thrown  into  the  form  of  notes — unrelieved  b}' 
occasional  Hashes  of  sarcasm  and  irony.  We  should  infer  from  his  book  that  Pro- 
fessor Godet  adds  to  power  of  grouping,  of  ingenious  and  exact  combiualiau  (see 
pp.  43,  109),  a  certain  quickness  of  wit,  only  exercised  here  indeed  when  the  provo- 
cation is  undoubted.  "  Our  evaugelLsts, "  says  he  (p.  240)  "  could  never  have  antici- 
pated that  they  would  ever  have  such  perverse  interpreters." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  freshness  and  force  of  his  own  interpretations — as  in  the 
turning  of  "the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children"  (p.  49),  and  the  deputation 
from  .John  the  Baptist  (pp.  220-324)— tiud  an  appropriate  vehicle  in  clear,  vivacious, 
and  often  eloquent  language.  See  as  illustration  the  amplification  of  the  paiabolic 
language  regarding  "  new  wine  and  old  bottles"  (p.  180).  Even  as  a  bright  thought 
or  an  unexpected  felicitous  phrase  in  the  most  earnest  sermon  will  sometimes  sur- 
prise the  hearer  into  a  smile,  so  the  keenness  of  anal^'sis  (see  p.  147)  and  the  detec- 
tion of  nice  evidences  and  apologetic  considerations  (as  in  pp.  57,  6(>,  101, 
etc.)  will  often  touch  the  mind  of  a  reatler  as  with  a  pleasant  surprise.  Nor  is  there 
wanting  a  fine  suggesliveness  in  many  of  his  paragraphs,  as  when  he  calls  demoniacal 
possession  the  caricature  of  divine  inspiration.  How  much  of  that  awful  anlilhcsis 
runs  through  revelation,  as  in  the  "  m3''stery  of  godliness"  and  the  "  mystery  of 
iniquil}',"  the  Christ  and  the  Autichiist  !  Satan  is  truly  in  many  things  the  ape  of 
Deity. 

The  power  of  keen  analysis  of  Professor  Godet,  of  which  an  illustration  maj'  be 
seen  on  p.  147,  will  be  found  usefully  employed  in  the  concluding  and  very  valuable 
portion  of  his  work,  when,  having  gone  over  the  Gospel  exegetically,  he  comes  to 
deal  formally  with  the  divergent  theories  of  Rationalism  on  the  origin  and  objects  of 
the  four  Gospels.  It  may  be  thought,  possibly,  by  some,  that  it  is  enough  to  over- 
throw views  contradict.ory  of  one  another,  and  of  vital  principles,  and  that  one  is 
under  no  obligation  to  provide  a  genesis  of  these  inspired  records.  But  so  long  as 
men  will  ask  after  tlie  how,  within  certain  limits  an  answer  will  be  attempted  ;  and 
taut  of  this  volume  does  not  transcend  the  limits  of  modesty  and  reverence.  The 
Church,  in  various  ways,  including  works  like  this,  can  "  move"  and  "  induce"  to  a 
"  high  and  reverend  estx;em  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;"  but  of  the  Gospels  this  is  em- 
phatically true,  that  "  the  heaveuliness  of  the  mutter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrinp, 
the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is 
to  give  g\oxY  to  God),  the  full  discovery  made  of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation, 
the  niiin}-  other  incomparal)le  excellences,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,"  are 
the  arguments  by  which  they  "  abundantly  evidence  themselves  to  be  the  Word  of 
God." 

It  could  hardl3^  be  supposed  that  no  phrase  in  a  work  like  this,  and  coming  to  us 
through  a  translation,  would  invite  criticism.  The  author's  views  of  the  Pdi'oiina, 
which  Greek  word  our  continental  fricuds  are  fond  of  using  for  the  "  coming"  (Matt. 
24  :  3  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  23),  applied  to  Christ,  are  not  formally  stated  ;  but  there  are 
intimations  of  their  nature,  as  on  p.  406,  vhich  would  not  satisfy  a  large  portion  of 


VI  COMMEXTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE, 

the  evangelical  churches.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  a  calm  and  orderly  statement 
of  these  opinions  would  make  a  different  impression.  This  we  infer  particularly  from 
declarations  made  on  p.  453,  which  appear  to  be  at  variance  with  tliose  commonly 
held  by  the  advocates  of  two  resurrections,  divided  by  an  interval  more  or  less  de- 
fined in  tlieir  representations.  It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that  our  author,  in  dealing 
with  the  Tubingen  school,  is  forced  to  discuss  with  great  freedom  what  may  be  called 
the  human  side  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  This  may  account  for  such  an  in- 
ffilicilous  phrase  as  "  chronological  error"  on  p.  IIG.  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that, 
as  devout  scientists  may  discuss  the  mode  of  producing  our  existing  woild  without 
questioning  its  divine  origin,  or  iguoring  a  Creator,  so  reverent  scholarship  may  ex- 
amine the  processes  by  which  holy  oracles  come  to  us,  without  impugning  the  fact 
that  they  are  the  utterances  of  tbe  Divine  Teacher,  given  by  inspiuilion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  mode  of  inspiration  wiil  probably  remain  a  mystery  ;  but  that  limitation 
in  the  matter  of  our  linovvleJge  will  no  more  put  it  in  doubt  as  a  fact,  in  a  candid 
mind,  than  ignorance  of  the  piocess  it  details  will  imply  question  of  the  rtgeneia- 
tion  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  lu  both  mysterious  and  gracious  woiks  the  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth,  and  we  hear  the  sound  and  reap  the  benefits,  but  cannot  tell  whence 
it  Cometh  or  whither  it  goeth. 

While  Sabbath-school  teachers  will  not,  for  the  most  part,  follow  with  interest  the 
examination  of  the  views  of  Bleek,  Baur,  Weiss,  Klosteiman,  Holtzmann,  and  others, 
we  do  not  doubt  that  they  will  be  read  with  inteiest  by  ministers.  They  m  ho  love  and 
teach  definite  truth  will  be 'able  to  understand  how  an  evyngelical  prophet  may  break 
into  sarcasm  (as  on  p.  43o)  while  giving  aiticulate  form  to  the  designs  of  Christ's 
enemies.  They  will  appreciate  such  clear  statement  as  they  will  find  on  pp.  485-6  ; 
swch  points  as  that  made  regarding  the  Sabbath  at  y.  450,  and  the  tieatment  of  ihe 
current  objection  founded  ou  the  references  to  Annas  and  Caiaphas  (p.  480).  Tlie 
analysis  of  our  Lord's  use  of  Jolin's  baptism  in  his  snuggle  with  his  triicnlent  foes 
is  an  admirable  illustration  of  the  author's  power  to  place  himself  in  the  midst  of  the 
confiict  waged  by  the  Truth  incarnate  against  sacerdotalism  and  perverted  and  par- 
tisan zeal.  One  may  hesitate  to  take  the  net  cast  on  the  other  side,  as  pointing  to 
the  ingathering  of  the  heathen,  just  as  the  conclusions  suggested  on  p.  495  may  be 
left  among  the  open  questions  withuut  lessening  admiration  for  the  author's  jains- 
taking  ingenuity.  Nor,  finally,  can  any  attentive  reader  fail  to  notice  the  wealth 
of  allusion  and  the  variety  of  sources  whence  light  is  made  to  shine  on  thesacied 
pages  ;  as,  for  example  (p  5()3),  in  dealing  with  the  evangelist's  dittetences  in  foims 
of  speech,  when  Basil  the  Great  is  adduced  as  reporting  that  "down  to  his  time 
(fourth  century)  the  Church  possessed  no  written  liturgy  for  the  Holy  Supper — the 
sacramental  prayers  and  formuUr}  were  transmitted  by  timcntten  tradition." 

It  is  with  great  satisfaction,  then,  that  thepreseut  writer  wishes  God-speed,  by  this 
prefatory  note,  to  a  volume  which  is  at  once  learned  and  reverent,  distinct  in  its  ex- 
hibition of  the  positive  truth,  and  vigorously  controversial,  in  which  the  clearest  esti- 
mate of  the  several  Gospels  is  complemented  by  just  views  of  Him  of  whose  niany- 
sider]  excellency  and  glory  they  are  the  fourfold  {)resentation. 

The  woik,  it  ishar'dly  needJFul  tosa3^  is  unabridged,  every  Greek  and  Hebrew  word 
being  reproduced.  Only  such  brief  notes  (indicated  by  his  initials)  as  might  save  Sab- 
bath-school teachers  from  misapprehension — ministerial  readers  do  not  require  them — 
have  been  added  by  the  writer,  and  these  not  without  hesitation.  It  is  iioped  that  this 
issue  in  popular  form  of  one  of  the  Messrs.  Clark's  publications — by  which  sucli 
servi(;e  has  been  rendered  to  Christian  literature — will  call  attention  to  their  other 
translations  in  quarters  where  they  have  not  yet  gone.  It  is  hardly  needful  to  say 
that  Messrs.  Scribner,  the  only  house  in  America  that  has  sought  to  make  a  market 
for  the  work  (and  therefore  entitled  to  be  consulted)  give  their  full  assent  to  this  issue 
— an  assent  that  will  be  appreciated  by  those  who  desire  to  send  the  results  of  the 
ripest  scholarship  among  all  classes  of  Christian  students  and  laborers. 

J.  HALL. 

Mft7i  Avenue  Prenhyterian  Church,  New  York, 
December.  1880. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE  TO    SECOND  EDITION. 

A  YEAR  and  half  has  passed  away — and  how  swiftly  ! — since  the  publication  of 
this  Commentary,  and  already  a  second  edition  has  become  necessary.  I  bless  the 
Lord  for  the  .acceptance  which  this  work  has  met  with  in  the  churches  of  Switzer- 
land and  of  France,  and  I  hail  it  as  a  symptom  of  that  revived  interest  in  exegetical 
studies,  which  has  always  appeared  to  me  one  of  their  most  urgent  needs.  1  tender 
my  special  thanks  to  the  authors  of  those  favorable  reviews  which  have  given  effect- 
ual aid  toward  the  attaiument  of  this  result. 

Almost  every  page  of  this  second  edition  bears  the  traces  of  corrections  in  the 
form  of  my  former  work  ;  but  the  substance  of  its  exegesis  and  criticism  remains  the 
same.  Of  only  one  passage,  or  rather  of  only  one  term  {second-first,  G  :  1),  has  the 
interpretation  been  modified.  Besides  that,  1  have  made  a  number  of  additions 
occasioned  h}^  the  publication  of  two  works,  one  of  which  1  have  very  frequently 
quoted,  and  the  other  as  often  controverted.  I  refer  to  M.  Gess'  book,  "  Sur  la 
Persoune  et  I'Qilu^^re  de  Christ"  (first  part),  and  to  "  La  Vie  de  J6sus"  by  M.  Keim 
(the  last  two  volumes). 

In  a  i-ecent  article  of  the  "  Protestautische  Kirchenzeitung, "  M.  Holtzmann  has 
challenged  my  critical  standpoint  as  being  determined  by  a  dogmatic  prepossession. 
But  has  he  forgotten  the  advantage  which  Strauss  took  in  his  first  "  Vie  de  Jesus" 
of  the  hypothesis  of  Gieseler,  which  I  have  defended  ?  The  reader  having  the  whole 
before  him  will  judge.  He  will  see  for  himself  whether  the  attempt  to  explain  in  a 
natural  aod  rational  way  the  origiu  of  the  three  synoptical  texts  by  means  of  common 
■written  sources  is  successful.  There  is  one  fact  especially  which  still  waits  for 
explanation — namely,  the  Aramaisms  of  Luke.  These  Aramaisms  are  met 
with  not  oniy  in  passages  which  belong  exclusively  to  this  Hellenistic  writer,  but 
also  in  those  which  are  common  to  him  and  the  other  writers,  who  were  of  Jewish 
origin,  and  in  whose  parallel  passages  nothing  of  a  similar  kind  is  to  be  found  !  This 
lact  remains  as  a  rock  against  which  all  the  various  hypotheses  I  have  controverted 
are  completely  shattered,  and  especially  that  of  Holtzmann.  May  not  the  somewhat 
ungenerous  imputation  of  the  Professor  of  Heidelberg,  whose  earnest  labors  no  one 
admires  more  than  myself,  have  been  inspired  by  a  slight  feeling  of  wounded  self- 
esteem  ? 

And  now,  may  this  Commentary  renew  its  course  with  the  blessing  of  the  Lord, 
to  whose  service  it  is  consecrated  ;  and  may  its  second  voyage  be  as  prosperous  and 
short  as  the  first !  P.  G. 

Neuchatel,  August,  1870. 


EXTRACTS  FROM   THE   PREFACE   TO   THE  FIRST   EDITION. 

A  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  remains  an  unfinisheJ  work  so  long  as  it  is 
left  unaccompanied  by  a  similar  work  on  at  least  one  of  the  synoptical  Gospels.  Of 
these  three  writings,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  appeared  to  me  best  fitted  to  serve  as  a  com- 
plement to  the  exegetical  work  which  I  had  previously  published,  because,  as  M. 
Sabaticr  has  well  shown  in  his  short  but  substantial  "  E>*sai  sur  les  Sources  de  la  Vie 
de  Jesus,"  Luke's  writing  constitutes,  in  several  important  respects,  a  transition 
between  the  view  taken  by  John  and  that  which  forms  the  basis  of  tlie  synoptical 
literature.* 

The  exegetical  method  pursued  is  very  nearly  the  same  as  in  my  preceding  Com- 
mentary. I  have  not  written  merely  for  professed  theologians  ;  nor  have  I  aimed 
directly  at  edification.  This  work  is  addressed,  in  general,  to  those  readers  of  cul- 
ture, so  numerous  at  the  present  day,  who  take  a  heart-felt  interest  in  the  religious  and 
critical  questions  which  are  now  under  discussion.  To  meet  their  requirements,  a 
translation  has  been  given  of  those  Greek  expressions  which  it  was  necessary  to 
quote,  and  technical  language  has  as  far  as  possible  been  avoided.  The  most  ad- 
vanced ideas  of  modern  unbelief  circulate  at  the  present  time  in  all  our  great  centres 
of  population.  In  the  streets  of  our  cities,  workmen  are  heard  talking  about  the  con- 
flict between  St.  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  must  therefore  en- 
deavor to  place  the  results  of  a  real  and  impartial  Biblical  science  within  reach  of  all. 
I  repeat  respecting  this  Commentary  what  I  have  already  said  of  its  predecessor  :  it 
has  been  written,  not  so  much  with  a  view  to  its  being  consulted,  as  read. 

From  the  various  readings,  I  have  had  to  select  those  which  had  a  certain  value, 
or  presented  something  of  interest.  A  commentary  cannot  pretend  to  supply  the 
place  of  a  complete  critical  edition  such  as  all  scientific  study  requires.  Since  I 
cannot  in  any  way  regard  the  eighth  edition  of  Tischendorf's  text  just  published  as 
a  standard  text,  though  1  gratefully  acknowledge  its  aid  as  absolutely  indispensable, 
I  have  adopted  the  received  text  as  a  basis  in  indicating  the  various  residings  ;  but  I 
would  express  m}'  earnest  desire  for  an  edition  of  the  Byzantine  text  that  could  be 
regarded  as  a  standard  authority. 

Frequently  I  have  contented  myself  with  citing  the  original  text  of  the  ancient 
manuscripts,  without  mentioning  the  changes  made  in  it  by  later  hands  ;  but 
whenever  these  changes  offered  anything  that  could  be  of  any  interest,  I  have  in- 
dicated them. 

If  I  am  a^ked  with  what  scientific  or  religious  assumptions  I  have  approached 
tiiis  study  of  the  third  Gospel,  I  reply,  With  these  two  only  :  that  the  authors  of  our 
Gos[jels  were  men  of  (jood  sense  and  goodfaitJi. 

■"■  The  publishers  intend,  if  these  volumes  on  Luke  meet  with  a  favorable  recep- 
tiin,  to  bring  out  M.  Godet's  celebrated  Commentary  on  .John  in  an  Euglij-h  dtess. 
lii'l;iefl,  they  would  have  followed  the  author's  order  of  publication,  but  that  thi'y 
v>;iii(>d  to  take  advantage  of  a  second  edition,  which  is  preparing  for  the  press. — 


COI^TEISTTS. 


PAGB 

iNTKODtlCTIOK 1-32 

Section     I.— Traces  of  the  Existence  of  the  Third  Gospel  in  the  Primitive  Charck 1 

Section    II.— The  Author 10 

Section  III. — Composition  of  the  Third  Gospel 18 

Section  IV.— Sources  of  the  Third  Gospel  21 

Section    V. — Preservation  of  the  Third  Gospel 29 

TiiE  Title  OB"  THE  Gospel 32 

1'iiE  Prologue,  1:1-4 33 


FIRST    PART. 

The  Narratives  of  the  Intanct,  1 :  5  -2  :  52 41-104 

First  Narrative  :  Announcement  of  the  Birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  1  :  5-25 43 

Second  Nnrrati ve  :  Announcement  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus,  1  :  2(j-38 53 

Third  Narrative  :  Mary's  Visit  to  Elizabeth,  1  :  39-56 59 

Fonrlli  Narrative  :  Birth  and  Circumcision  of  John  the  Baptist,  1  :  57-80 67 

Fifth  Narrative:  Birth  of  the  Saviour,  2:  1-20 73 

Sixth  Narrative  :  Circumcision  and  Presentation  of  Jesus,  2  :  21-40 84 

Seventh  Narrative  :  The  Child  Jesus  at  Jerusalem,  2  :  41-52 90 

General  Considerations  on  Chaps.  1  and  2 94 


SECOND    PART. 

The  Advent  op  the  Messiah,  3  : 1-4  :  13 105-145 

First  Narrative  :  The  Ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  3  :  1-20 105 

Second  Narrative  :  The  Baptism  of  Jesus,  3  :  21,  22 117 

On  the  Baptism  of  Jesus 121 

Third  Narrative  :  The  Genealogy  of  Jesus,  3  :  23-38 126 

Fourth  Narrative  :  The  Temptation,  4  :  1-13 13:? 

On  the  Temptation 142 


THIRD    PART. 

The  Ministry  op  Jesus  in  Galilee.  4  :  14-9  :  50 146-281 

First  Cycle  :  Visits  to  Nazareth  and  Capernaum,  4  :  14-44 148 

On  the  Miracles  of  Jesus 102 

Second  Cycle  :  From  the  Calling  of  the  First  Disciples  to  the  Choice  of  the  Twelve, 

5:1-6:11 1&3 

Third  Cycle  :  From  the  Choice  of  the  Twelve  to  their  First  Mission.  6  :  12-8  :  56 188 

Fourth  Cycle :  From  the  Sending  forth  of  the  Twelve  to  the  Departure  from  Galilee, 

0  :  1-50.  252 


X  CO^TTEXTS. 

FOURTH    PART. 

PAGE 

The  Journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  9  :  51-19  :  27 283-42;J 

First  Cycle  :  The  Departure  from  Galilee— First  Days  of  the  Journey,  9  :  51-13  :  21 288 

Second  Cycle  :  New  Series  of  Incidents  in  the  Journey,  13  :  22-17  :  10 35« 

Third  Cycle  :  The  Last  Scenes  in  the  Journey,  17  :  11-19  :  27 401 

FIFTH    PART. 

The  Sojourn  at  Jerusalem,  19  :  28-21  :  38 424-456 

First  Cycle  :  The  Entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  19  :  28-44  424 

Second  Cycle  :  The  Reign  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  19  :  45-21  :  4 428 

Third  Cycle  :  The  Prophecy  of  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem,  21 :  5-38 443 

SIXTH    PART. 

The  Passion,  23  and  23 457-501 

First  Cycle  :  The  Preparation  for  the  Passion,  22  :  1-46 457 

Second  Cycle  :  The  Passion,  22  :  47-23  :  46 476 

Third  Cycle  :  Close  of  the  History  of  the  Passion,  23  :  47-56 496 

Conclusion  regarding  the  Day  of  Christ's  Death 499 


SEVENTH    PART. 

The  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  24 502-517 

Of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 511 

Of  the  Ascension -515 


CONCLUSION. 

Chap.     I.— The  Characteristics  of  the  Third  Gospel 518 

Chap.    II. — The  Composition  of  the  Third  Gospel 586 

Chap.  III.— The  Sources  of  Luke,  and  the  Relation  of  the  Synoptics  to  one  another 519 

Chap.  IV". — The  Beginnings  of  the  Church 567 


INTRODUCTIO:^". 

The  Introduction  of  a  Biblical  Commentary  is  not  designed  to  solve  the  various 
quuslious  relating  to  the  origin  of  the  book  under  consideration.  Tliis  solution 
must  be  tliu  result  of  the  study  of  the  book  itself,  and  not  be  assumed  beforehand. 
The  proper  work  of  introduction  is  to  prepare  the  ^ixy  for  the  stud}''  of  the  sacred 
book  ;  it  should  prnpose  questions,  not  solve  them. 

But  there  is  one  side  of  the  labor  of  criticism  which  maj',  and  indeed  ought  to  be 
treated  before  exegesis — the  historical.  And  by  this  we  understand  :  1.  The  study  of 
such  facts  of  ecclesiastical  history  as  may  throw  light  upon  the  time  of  publicatiuu 
and  the  sources  of  the  work  which  is  to  engage  our  attention  ;  2.  The  review  of  the 
various  opinions  which  have  been  entertained  respecting  the  origin  of  this  book,  par- 
ticularly in  modern  times.  The  lirst  of  these  studies  supplies  exegetical  and  critical 
labor  with  its  starting-point ;  the  second  determines  its  aim.  The  possession  of  these 
two  kinds  of  information  is  the  condition  of  the  maintenance  and  advancement  of 
science. 

This  introduction,  then,  will  aim  at  making  the  reader  acquainted  with — 

I.  The  earliest  traces  of  tlie  existence  of  our  Oospel,  going  back  as  far  as  possible  in 
the  hislorj"^  of  the  primitive  Church. 

II.  The  statements  made  by  ancient  writers  as  to  the  person  of  the  author,  and  the 
opinions  current  at  the  present  day  on  this  point. 

III.  The  information  furnished  by  tradition  respecting  the  circumstances  in  icJa'cJi 
ihisicriting  was  composed  (its  readers,  date,  locality,  design),  as  well  as  the  different 
views  which  ciiticism  lias  taken  of  these  various  questions. 

IV.  The  ideas  which  scholars  have  formed  of  the  sources  whence  the  author  derived 
the  subject-matter  of  his  narrations, 

Y.  Lasll}',  the  documents  by  means  of  which  the  text  of  this  writing  has  been  pre- 
served to  us. 

An  introduction  of  this  kind  is  not  complete  without  a  conclusion  in  which  the 
questions  thus  raised  find  their  solution.  This  conclusion  should  seek  to  combine 
the  facts  established  by  tradition  with  the  results  obtained  from  exegesis. 

SEC.    I. — TRACES   OF   THE   EXISTENCE    OF    THE   THIRD    GOSPEL    IN   THE    PRIMITIVE 

CHURCH. 

"We  take  as  our  starting-point  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  our  aim  is  not 
to  come  down  the  stream,  but  to  ascend  it.  It  is  admitted,  indeed,  that  at  this  epoch 
our  Gospel  was  universally  known  and  received,  not  only  in  the  great  Church  (an 
expression  of  Celsus,  about  150),  but  also  by  the  sects  which  were  detached  from  it. 

This  admission  rests  on  some  indisputable  quotations  from  this  book  in  Theophilus 
of  Antioch  (about  170)  and  Irenoeus  (about  180),  and  in  the  "  Letter  of  the  Churches 
of  Lyons  and  Vieune"  (in  177)  ;  on  the  fact,  amply  verified  by  the  testimony  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  the  Gnostic  Heracleon  had  published  a  commentary  ou 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  as  well  as  on  the  Gospel  of  John  (between  175-1!)5)  ;*  on  the 

*  See.  for  the  fact,  Grabe,  "  Spicilegium,"  sec.  ii.  t.  i.  p.  8  ;  and  for  the  date, 
Li[)sius,  '  Die  Zeit  des  Marcion  und  des  Heracleon,"  in  Hilgenfeld's  "  Zeitschrifl," 
1807. 


2  (JOMMEiiTAllY    OX   ST.  LUKE. 

very  frequent  use  which  Valentinus,  or  at  least  writers  of  his  school,  made  of  this 
Gospel ;  lastly,  on  numerous  quotations  from  Luke,  acknowledged  by  all  scholars  at 
the  present  day,  contained  in  the  "  Clementine  Homilies"  (about  160).  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,  that  Origen  ranks  Luke's  work  among  the  number  of  those  four 
Gospels  aclinitted  hy  all  the  churches  under  heaven,  and  that  Eusebius  places  it  among 
the  homologo'umena  of  the  new  covenant.  The  only  matter  of  importance  here  is  to 
investigate  that  obscure  epoch,  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  for  any  indica- 
tions which  may  serve  to  prove  the  presence  and  influence  of  our  Gospel.  We  meet 
with  them  in  four  departments  of  inquiry — in  the  field  of  heresy,  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  in  the  pseudepigraphical  literature,  and  lastly,  in  the  biblical  writings. 

1.  Heresy. — Marcion,  Cerdo,  Basilides. 

Marcion,  a  son  of  a  bishop  of  Pontus,  who  wasexcomnmnicatedbyhis  own  father, 
taught  at  Rome  from  140-170.*  He  proposed  to  purify  the  Gospel  from  the  Jewish 
elements  whicb  the  twelve,  by  reason  of  their  education  and  Israelitish  prejudices, 
had  necessarily  introduced  into  it.  In  order  more  effectually  to  remove  this  alloy,  he 
taught  that  the  God  who  created  the  world  and  legislated  for  the  Jews  was  different 
from  the  supreme  God  who  revealed  Himself  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  was  only  an 
inferior  and  finite  being  ;  that  for  this  reason  the  Jewish  law  rested  exclusively  on 
justice,  while  the  Gospel  was  founded  on  charity.  According  to  him,  St.  Paul  alone 
had  understood  Jesus.  Further,  in  the  canon  which  Marcion  formed,  he  only 
admitted  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (on  account  of  its  affinity  with  the  teaching  of  Paid) 
and  ten  epistles  of  this  apostle.  But  even  in  these  writings  he  felt  liimself  obliged  to 
suppress  certain  passages  ;  for  they  constantly  assume  the  divine  character  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  attribute  the  creation  of  the  visible  universe  to  the  God  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Marcion,  in  conformity  with  his  ideas  about  matter,  denied  the  reality  of 
the  body  of  Jesus;  and  on  tiiis  point,  therefore,  he  found  himself  in  confiict  with 
numerous  texts  of  Paul  and  Luke.  The  greater  part  of  the  modifications  of  Luke's 
text  which  were  exhibited,  according  to  the  statements  of  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius, 
in  the  Gospel  used  by  Marcion  and  his  adherents,  are  to  be  accounted  for  in  this 
•way. 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  relation  between  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  that  of  this 
heretic  has  in  modern  times  been  represented  in  a  totally  different  light.  And  the 
reason  for  this  is  not  hard  to  find.  The  relation  which  we  have  just  pointed  out 
between  these  two  writings,  if  clearly  made  out,  is  sufficient  to  prove  that,  at  the 
time  of  Marcion's  activity,  Luke's  Gospel  existed  in  the  collections  of  apostolic 
writings  used  in  the  churches,  and  to  compel  criticism  to  assign  to  this  writing  both 
ancient  authority  and  a  very  early  origin.  Now  this  is  just  what  the  rationalistic 
school  was  not  disposed  to  admit.f  Consequently,  Semler  and  Eichhorn  in  the  past 
century,  and,  with  still  greater  emphasis,  Ritschl,  Baur,  and  Schwegler  in  our  time, 
have  maintained  that  the  priority  belonged  to  the  Gospel  of  Marcion,  that  this  work 
was  the  true  primitive  Luke,  and  that  our  canonical  Luke  was  the  result  of  a  retouch- 

*  Lipsius,  "  DieZeit  des  Marcion unddesHeracleon," in Hilgenfeld's  "  Zeitschr." 
1867. 

f  Hilgenfeld  himsflf  points  out  the  purely  dogmatic  origin  of  this  rationalistic 
opinion  :  "  Tins  opinion,"  he  says,  "  lias  misappreiieuded  the  true  tendency  of  the 
Gospel  of  Marcion,  thrmigh  a  desire  to  assign  to  the  canonical  text  (to  our  Luke)  the 
most  recent  date  possible''  ("  Die  Evaiigelicu,"  p.  27). 


CUAIMENTAUY    OX    ST.    LUKE.  3 

ing  of  this  more  ancient  work,  accomplished  iu  the  second  century  in  the  sense  of  a 
modilu'd  Paulinisna.  AVc  must  do  justice,  however,  to  this  critical  school.  No  one 
has  labored  more  energetically  to  rectify  this  erroneous 'bpiniDn,  tentatively  brought 
forward  by  several  of  its  adherents.  Hilgenfeld,  and  above  all  Volkmar,  have  suc- 
cessfully combated  it,  and  Kitschl  has  expressly  withdrawn  it  ("  Theol.  Jahrb.  X.,"  p. 
528,  et  scq.)  ;  Bleck  ('"  Einl.  iu.  d.  X.  T.,"  p.  122  etseq.)  has  given  an  able  summary  of 
the  whole  discussion.  We  shall  only  bring  forward  the  following  points,  which  stem 
to  us  the  most  essential  : 

1.  Tiie  greater  pait  of  the  differences  which  must  have  distinguished  the  Gospel 
of  Marciou  from  our  Luke  are  to  be  explained  either  as  the  result  of  his  Gnostic 
si'stem,  or  as  mere  critical  corrections.  Thus,  Marcion  suppressed  the  first  two 
chapters  on  the  hirth  of  Jesus— a  retrenchment  which  suited  his  Docetism  ;  also  iu 
the  passage  Luke  13  :  28,  "  When  you  shall  see  Abraham,  Inaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all 
the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God,"  he  read,  "  When  you  shall  see  the  just  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  which  alone  answered  to  his  theory  of  the  old  covenant ; 
in  the  same  way  also,  for  the  words  of  Jesus  in  Luke  16  :  17,  "  It  is  easier  for  heaveu 
and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  ofthelaio  to  fail,"  Marcion  read,  "  than  that  one  tittle 
of  the  letter  of  mrj  words  should  fail."  In  both  these  instances,  one  must  be  blind  not 
to  see  that  it  was  Marcion  who  modified  the  text  of  Luke  to  suit  his  sj-stem,  and  not 
the  reverse.  Again,  we  read  that  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  began  in  this  waj'  :  "  In  the 
fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius,  Jesus  descended  to  Capernaum" 
(naturally,  from  heaven,  without  having  passed  through  the  human  stages  of  birth 
and  youth)  ;  theu  came  the  narrative  of  the  first  sojourn  at  Capernaum,  just  as  it  is 
related  Luke  4  :  31  etseq.;  and  after  that,  only  in  the  inverse  order  to  that  which 
obtains  in  our  Gospel,  the  narrative  of  the  visit  to  Nazareth,  Luke  A  :  IQ  et  seq.  Is  it 
not  clear  that  such  a  beginning  could  not  belong  to  the  piimitive  writing,  and  that 
the  transposition  of  the  two  narratives  which  follow  was  designed  to  do  away  with 
the  difficulty  presented  by  the  words  of  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  (Luke  4  :  28),  as 
Luke  places  them,  before  the  sojourn  at  Capernaum  ?  The  narrative  of  Marcion  was 
then  the  result  of  a  dogmatic  and  critical  revision  of  Luke  o  :  1,  4  :  31,  4  :  16  and  23. 

2.  It  is  a  well-knowu  fact  that  Marciou  had  falsified  the  Epistles  of  Paul  by  an 
exactly  similar  process. 

3.  !Marcion's  sect  alone  availed  themselves  of  the  Gospel  used  by  this  heretic.  This 
fact  proves  that  this  work  was  not  an  evangelical  writing  already  known,  which  the 
author  of  our  Luke  modified,  and  which  Marcion  alone  had  preserved  intact. 

From  all  this,  a  scientific  criticism  can  only  conclude  that  our  Gospel  of  Luke  was 
in  existence  before  that  of  Marcion,  and  that  this  heretic  chose  this  among  all  the 
Gospels  which  enter  into  the  ecclesiastical  collection  as  the  one  which  he  could  most 
readily  adapt  to  his  system.*  About  140,  then,  our  Gospel  already  possessed  full 
authorit}',  the  result  of  a  conviction  of  its  apostolic  origin. 

*  Zeller  (in  his  "  Apostelgeschichte")  expre.sses  himself  thus  :  "  We  may  admit  as 
proved  and  geneially  accepted,  not  only  that  ]\Iarcion  made  use  of  an  older  Gospel, 
but  further,  that  he  recomposed,  modified,  and  often  abridged  it,  ami  that  this  older 
Gospel  was  essentially  none  other  than  our  Luke. "  Tiiis  restriction  "essentially" 
refers  to  certain  passages,  in  which  it  appears  to  writers  of  the  Tubingen  school  that 
Marcion's  reading  is  more  originnl  than  that  of  our  canonical  text.  The  latter, 
according  to  Raur  and  Hilgenfeld,  must  have  been  introduced  with  a  view  lo  counter- 
act the  use  which  the  Gnostics  made  of  the  true  text.     Zeller,  however  (p.  12  ct  seq.), 


4  COMMENTAllY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Marciou  did  not  create  bis  system  himself.  Before  him,  Ceido,  according  to  Theo- 
doret's  iiccount  ("  Haeret.  fubulse,"  i.  24),  proved  by  the  Oosjiels  that  the  just  God  of 
tlie  ohl  covenant  and  the  ffood  God  of  the  new  are  different  beings  ;  and  he  founded 
this  contrariety  on  the  precepts  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5  :  38-48  ;  Luke 
6  :  27-88).  The  Gospel  of  Luke  muht  have  sustained  the  principal  part  in  this 
demonstration,  if  at  least  we  credit  the  testimony  of  an  ancient  writer  (Pseudo-Tertul- 
lian,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  "  De  prseseriptioue  htereticorum, "  c.  51):  "Solum 
evangeUum  Lvcce,  nee  tamen  totum,  recipit  [Cerdo]."  Some  years,  then,  before 
Marcion,  Cerdo  sought  to  prove  the  opposition  of  the  law  to  the  Gospel  by  the  written 
Gospels,  especially  by  that  of  Luke. 

Basilides,  one  of  the  most  ancient  known  Gnostics,  who  is  usually  said  to  have 
flourished  at  Alexandria  about  120,  assumed  for  himself  and  his  son  Isidore  the  title 
of  pupils  of  the  Apostle  Matthias.  The  statement  of  Hippolytus  is  as  follows  : 
"  Basilides,  with  Isidore,  his  true  son  and  disciple,  said  that  Matthias  had  transmitted 
to  them  orally  some  secret  instructions  which  he  had  received  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Saviour  in  His  private  teaching."*  This  claim  of  Basilides  implies  the  circulation 
of  the  book  of  the  Acts,  in  which  alone  there  is  any  mention  of  the  apostolate  of 
Matthias,  and  consequently  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  was  composed  before  the 
Acts. 

2.  The  Fathers. — Justin,  Poly  carp,  Clement  of  Rome. 

If  it  is  proved  that  about  140,  and  at  Rome,  Cerdo  and  Marcion  made  use  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  as  a  book  generally  received  in  the  Church,  it  is  quite  impossible  to 
suppose  that  this  Gospel  was  not  in  the  hands  of  Justin,  who  wrote  in  this  very  city 
some  years  later.  Besides,  the  writings  of  Justin  allow  of  no  doubt  as  to  tliis  fact  ; 
and  it  is  admitted  at  the  present  day  by  all  the  writers  of  that  school,  which  makes 
exclusive  claims  to  be  critical — by  Zeller,    Volkmar,  and    Hilgenfeld.f     With  this 

considerably  reduces  the  number  of  those  passages  in  which  Marcion  is  supposed  to 
have  preserved  the  true  reading,  and  those  which  he  retains  are  far  from  bearing  the 
marks  of  proof.  Thus,  Luke  10  :  22,  Marcion  appears  to  have  read  ot'(5f/c  f } '  w,  no 
one  hath  kiiomn,  instead  of  oink)?  yivuGKei,  no  one  knoweth  ;  and  because  this  reading 
is  found  in  Justin,  in  the  "  Clementine  Homilies,"  and  in  some  of  the  Fatlicrs,  it  is 
inferred  that  our  canonical  text  has  been  altered.  But  Justin  himself  also  reads 
yLvuoKei  ("  Dial,  c.  Tryph."  c.  100).  There  appears  to  be  nothing  more  here  than  an 
ancient  variation.  In  the  same  passage,  Marcion  appears  to  have  placed  the  words 
which  refer  to  (he  knowledge  of  the  Father  by  the  Son  before  those  which  refer  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  Sun  by  the  FaDier— a  reading  which  is  also  found  in  the 
"  Clementine  Homilies."  But  here,  again,  this  can  only'bea  mere  variation  of  reading 
which  it  is  easy  to  explain.  It  is  of  such  little  dogmatic  importance  that  Ireneeus, 
who  opposes  it  critically,  himself  quotes  the  passage  twice  in  this  form  ("  Tischend. 
ad  Mallh.  11  :  27"). 

*  "  S.  Hippolyli  Refutationis  omnium  haeresium  librorum  decem  quae  super  sunt" 
(ed.  Duncker  et  Schneidewin),  L.  vii.  §  20. 

t  "  Justin's  acquaintance  with  theGospel  of  Luke  is  demonstrnted  by  a  series  of 
passages,  of  which  some  certainhf,  and  others  very  probably,  are  citations  from  this 
book"  (Zeller,  "  Apostelffeschich'te,"  p.  26).  On  the  subiect  of  a  passage  from  the 
"  Dialogue  with  Trypho,'"  c.  40,  Volkmar  says  :  "  Luke  (3  :  16,  17)  is  quoted  here, 
first  in  common  with  Matthew,  then,  in  preference  to  the  latter,  literally"  ("  Ursprung 
unserer  Ev. "  p.  157).  "  Justin  is  acquainted  with  nur  three  synoptical  Gospels,  and 
extracts  them  almost  completely"  (Ibid.  p.  91).  "  Besides  Matthew  and  Mark  .  .  . 
Justin  also  makes  use  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke"  (Hilgenfeld,  "  Der  Kanon,"  p.  2o). 


COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE.  5 

admission  before  us,  we  know  wliat  the  assertions  of  M.  Nicolas  are  worth,  which 
he  does  not  scruple  to  hiy  before  French  readers,  who  have  so  little  acquaintance 
witli  questions  of  this  nature — such  an  assertion,  for  instance,  as  this  :  "It  is  impos- 
sible to  read  the  comparisons  which  critics  of  this  school  [the  orthodox]  are  accus- 
tomed to  make  between  certain  passages  of  Polycarp,  Clement  of  Rome,  Ignatius, 
and  ev^n  Justin  Martyr,  and  analogous  passages  from  our  Gospels,  without  being 
tempted  to  think  that  the  cause  must  be  very  bad  that  cau  need,  or  that  can  be  satis- 
fied witli  such  arguments."*  It  appears  that  Messrs.  Zeller,  Ililgenfeld,  and  Volkmar 
are  all  implicated  together  in  furbishing  up  these  fallacious  arguments  in  favor  of 
orthodox}'  1  Here  are  some  passages  which  prove  unanswerably  that  Justin  Martyr 
used  our  third  Gospel :  Dial.  c.  100,  he  quotes  almost  verbatim  Luke  1  :26-30.f  Ibid. 
c.  48,  and  Apol.  i.  34,  he  mentions  the  census  of  Quirinus  in  the  very  terms  of  Luke. 
Dial.  c.  41  and  70,  and  Apol.  i.  6G,  he  refers  to  the  institution  of  the  Holj'  Supper 
according  to  the  text  of  Luke.  Dial.  c.  103,  he  says  :  "  In  the  memoirs  which  I  say 
were  composed  by  His  apostles,  and  by  those  that  accompanied  them,  [it  is  related] 
that  the  sweat  rolled  from  Him  in  drops  while  He  pra5'ed,"  etc.  (Luke  23  :  44).  Ibid., 
Justiu  refers  to  Jesus  having  been  sent  to  Herod — an  incident  only  related  by  Luke. 
Ibid.  c.  105,  he  quotes  the  last  words  of  Jesus,  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commit 
my  spirit,"  as  taken  from  "  The  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles."  X  This  prayer  is  only 
recorded  by  Luke  (23  :  46).  We  have  only  indicated  the  quotations  expressly 
acknowledged  as  such  by  Zeller  himself  ("  Apostelgeschichte,"  pp.  26-37). 

It  is  impossible,  then,  to  doubt  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  formed  part  of  those  apos- 
tolic memoirs  quoted  eighteen  times  by  Justin,  and  from  which  he  has  derived  the 
greater  part  of  the  facts  of  the  Gospel  that  are  mentioned  by  him. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  having  been  written  after  the  Gospel,  and  by  the  same 
author  (these  two  facts  are  admitted  by  all  true  criticism),  every  passage  of  the  Fathers 
which  proves  the  existence  of  this  book  at  a  given  moment  demonstrates  d  fortiori  the 
existence  of  the  Gospel  at  the  same  time.  We  may  therefore  adduce  the  following 
passage  from  Polycarp,  which  we  think  can  only  be  explained  as  a  quotation  from 
the  Acts  : 

Acts  2  :  24.  Poltc.  ad  Phil.  c.  1. 

'Ov  6  9eo5  uvea-Tjaep,  Tivaai  raS  (JfJivaS  tov         'Ov  fiyeipev  o  Qth^  /liiaaS   rdS  wrFlvaS  row 

Oavarnv.  g.dov. 

"  Whom  God  hath  raised  up.  having        "  Whom  God  hath   awakened,  having 

loosed  the  [birth-]  pains  of  death."  loosed  the  [birth-]  pains  of  Hades." 

The  identical  construction  of  the  proposition  in  the  two  writings,  the  choice  of 
the  term  /.iiaai,  and  the  strange  expression  the  birth-pains  of  death  (Acts)  or  of  Hades 
(Polyc),  scarcely  permit  us  to  doubt  that  the  passage  in  Polycarp  was  taken  from 
that  in  the  Acts.g 

*  "  Etudes  critiques  sur  Ic  N.  T. "  p.  5. 

f  Reference  to  Justin  Martyr's  "  Dialogues"  (Clarke's  edition),  p.  225,  will  show 
that  vv.  20-38  are  quoted  in  the  way  in  which  one  who  wished  to  summarize  would 
reproduce. — J.  11. 

t  So  called  in  c.  100.  when  quoting  from  Matt.  4  :  9,  10.— J.  H. 

§  It  is  not  impossible,  certainly,  that  the  expression  (IxVivf;  was  taken  by  both  these 
authors  from  Ps.  18  :  5,  or  from  Ps.  116  :  3,  where  the  LXX.  translate  by  this  term 
the  word  ^nrii  '^bich  signifies  at  once  bo/ul'i  and  pains  of  childbirth  ;  but  there  still 
remains  in  the  two  propositions  as  a  whole  an  unaccountable  similarity. 


6  COMMEXTAllY    ON    ST,   LUKK. 

In  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  there  is  an  exiioi  tation  beginning  with  these 
words  :  "Remember  Ihe  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  which  he  tau,e;ht  equity  and 
generosity  ;"  then  comes  a  passage  in  which  the  texts  of  Matthew  and  Lulie  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  appear  to  be  combined,  but  where,  iu  the  opinion  of  Volkmar,* 
the  text  of  Luke  predominates  (6  :  31,  3(5-38).  In  this  same  letter  the  Acts  are  twice 
quoted,  first  at  c.  18.  where  mention  is  made  of  a  divine  testimony  respecting  King 
David,  and  there  is  an  amalgamation  of  the  two  following  Old  Testament  pass- 
ages :  1  Sam.  13  ;  14  and  Ps.  89  :  21,  Now  a  precisely  similar  fusion,  or  very 
nearly  so,  is  found  in  the  book  of  the  Acts  (13  :  22).  How  could  this  almost  identi- 
cal combination  of  two  such  distinct  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  have  occurred 
spontaneously  to  the  two  writers  ? 

1  Sam.  13  :  14.  Ps.  89  :  20. 

"The  Lord  hath  sought  him  a  ma7i  "  J  Jiave  found  David  my  servant ;  -with 
after  his  mon  lieart."  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him." 

Acts  13  :  22. 
"  7  have  found  David  the  son  of  Jesse,  a  man  after  mine  own  heart,  which  shall 
fulfil  all  my  will." 

Clem.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  18, 
"  I  have  found  a  man  after  my  own  heart,  David  son  of  Jesse  ;  and  I  have  anointed 
him  with  eternal  oil." 

The  other  quotation  is  an  expression  of  euolgy  which  Clement  addresses  to  the 
Corinthians  (c.  2):  "Giving  more  willingly  than  receiving  {ixullov  diSovTs'i  r)  ?^aft- 
iSdvovTEi)," — a  repetition  of  the  very  words  of  Jesus  cited  by  Paul,  Acts  20  :  35  : 
"It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  {didoiai  ^io/Caov  fj  Xafi3uveLv)."  No  doubt 
these  are  allusions  rather  than  quotations  properly  so  called.  But  we  know  that  this 
is  the  ordinary  mode  of  quotation  in  the  Fathers. 

It  is  true  that  the  Tubingen  school  denies  the  authenticity  of  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  and  Polycarp,  and  assigns  them,  the  former  to  the  first  quarter,  and  the 
latter  to  the  second  part,  of  the  second  century  ;  but  the  authenticity  of  the  former 
in  particular  is  guaranteed  by  the  most  unexceptionable  testimonies.  Although  in 
many  respects  not  at  all  flattering  to  the  church  of  Corinth,  it  was  deposited  in  the 
archives  of  this  church,  and,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Dionysius,  bishop  of 
Cornith  about  170,  was  frequently  read  publicly  to  the  congregation.  Further,  it  is 
quoted  by  Polycarp,  Hegesippus,  and  Irenseus.  Now,  if  it  is  authentic,  it  dates,  not 
from  125,  as  Volkmar  thinks,  but  at  latest  from  the  end  of  the  first  century.  Accord- 
ing to  Hase,  it  belongs  to  between  80  and  90  ;  according  to  Tischendorf,  it  dates  from 
69,  or.  less  probably^  from  96.  For  our  part,  we  should  regard  this  last  date  as  most 
probable.  In  any  case,  we  see  that  the  use  of  Luke's  writings  in  this  letter  confers  a 
very  high  antiquity  on  their  diffusion  and  authority. 

3.  The  PsEUDEPiGRAPHiCAL  WRITINGS.— Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs. 

Among  the  writings  of  Jewish  or  Jewish-Christian  origin  which  antiquity  has 
bequeathed  to  us,  there  is  one  which  appears  to  have  been  composed  by  a  Christian 

*  "  The  text  of  Matthew  differs  most,  while  Luke's  text  furnishes  the  substance 
of  the  developed  thought"  ("  Urspr.,"  p.  138). 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE.  T 

Jew.  desirous  of  bringing  his  fellow-countrympn  to  tlie  Christian  faith.  With  this 
view  he  represents  the  twelve  sous  of  Jacob  as  speaking  on  their  deathbeds,  aud 
assigns  to  each  of  them  a  prophetic  discourse,  in  which  they  depict  the  future  lot  of 
their  people,  and  announce  the  blessings  to  be  conferred  by  the  gospel.  Contrary  to 
the  opiuion  of  M.  Keuss,  who  places  the  composition  of  this  work  after  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,*  de  Groot  and  Laugen  tliluk  that  it  belongs  to  the  end  of  the 
first  or  the  beginning  of  the  second. f  As  this  book  alludes  to  the  first  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  hy  the  Romans  in  70,  but  in  no  way  refers  to  the  second  by  Adrian  in  135, 
it  must,  it  would  seem,  date  from  the  iiilervul  between  these  two  events.  It  contains 
numerous  quotations  fnmi  Luke  as  well  as  from  the  other  evangelists,  but  the  fol- 
lowing passage  is  particularly  important  :  "  In  the  last  days,  said  Benjamin  to  his  sons- 
there  shall  S[)ring  from  my  race  a  ruler  according  to  the  Lord,  who,  alter  having  heard 
his  voice,  shall  spread  u  new  light  among  the  heathen.  He  shall  abide  in  the  syna- 
gogues of  the  heathen  to  the  end  of  the  ages,  and  shall  be  in  the  mouth  of  their  chiefs 
as  a  pleasant  song.  Bis  xoork  and  Im  word  shall  be  wnlten  in  tlie  lioly  hooks.  He  shall 
be  chosen  of  God  for  eternity.  ]\Iy  father  Jacob  hath  told  me  about  him  who  is  to 
make  up  for  the  deficiencies  of  my  race."  The  Apostle  Paul  was  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  and  there  is  an  allusion  in  this  passage  to  his  work  as  described  in  the 
book  of  the  Acts,  and  probably  also  to  his  epistles  as  containing  his  word.  There  is 
no  doubt,  then,  that  the  book  of  the  Acts  is  here  referred  to  as  constituting  part  of 
the  collection  of  holy  books  (tv  (Hji^Mii  rnls  uyiaic).  This  passage  is  thus  the  parallel 
of  the  famous  As  it  is  written,  which  is  found  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  which 
serves  as  a  preamble,  about  the  same  time,  to  a  quotation  from  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew.:}:  Before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  therefore,  there  were  collections  of 
apostolic  writings  in  the  churches,  the  contents  of  which  we  cannot  exactly  de- 
scribe :  they  varied,  no  doubt,  in  different  churches,  which  were  already  regarded 
equally  with  the  Old  Testament  as  hohi ;  and  iu  these,  the  book  of  the  Acts,  aud 
consequently  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  found  a  place. 

4.  Biblical  Writings.— Jo7t?!,  Mark,  Acts. 

The  whole  Gospel  of  John  supxjoses,  as  we  think  has  been  proved  in  our  Com- 
mentary upon  that  book,  the  existence  of  our  sj'noptics,  and  their  proi)agation  in  the 
Church.  As  to  Luke  iu  particular,  10  :  38-43  must  be  compared  with  John  11  and 
13  :  1-8  ;  then  34  :  1-13  and  3G-49  with  John  30  :  1-18  and  19-33, where  John's  nar- 
rative appears  to  allude,  sometimes  even  in  expression,  to  Luke's. 

The  first  distinct  and  indubitable  trace  of  the  influence  of  Luke's  Gospel  on  a 
book  of  the  New  Testament  is  found  in  the  conclusion  of  Mark  (1(5  :  0-30).  On  the 
one  hand,  we  hope  to  prove  that,  untd  we  come  to  this  fragment,  the  composition  of 
Mark  is  quite  independent  of  Luke's  narrative.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that 
from  this  point  the  narrative  of  Mark,  notwithstanding  some  peculiarities,  is  scarcely 

*  "  Die  Gesch.  der  heil.  Schr.  K  T.,"  §  2~)7. 

I  I)e  Groot,  "  Basilides, "  p  37  ;  Langen,  "  Das  Judenthum  in  Palesti,"  148. 

j  Hilgenfeld,  with  all  fairness,  acknowledges  this  quotation  in  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  and  the  consequences  deducible  from  it  :  "  We  meet  with  the  first  trace  of 
this  ajipliciitiou  [of  the  notion  of  inspiration  as  iu  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  th  ise  of  the  apostles]  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  in  tlie  so-called  letter  of 
BarnaliHs,  in  which  a  sentence  from  the  Gospel  is  quoted  as  a  passage  of  Scripture' 
("Dec  Kanon,"  p.  10). 


8  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

anything  but  an  abridged  reproduction  of  Lulie's.  It  is,  as  it  has  been  called,  tJie  mcsi 
clearly  marked  ntyle  of  extract.  Compare  verse  96  and  Luke  8:2;  verses  10,  11,  and 
Luke  24  :  10-12  ;  verse  12  and  Luke  verses  13-22  ;  verse  13,  and  Luke  verses  33-35  ; 
verse  14«  aud  Luke  verses  30-43.  It  is  possible  also  that  John  20  :  1-17  may  have 
had  some  iotluence  on  verse  9a.  As  to  the  discourse  verses  15-18,  aud  the  fiagmunt 
verses  19,  20,  the  author  of  this  couclusion  must  have  taken  these  from  materials  of 
his  own.  Now  we  know  that  this  conclusion  to  Mark,  from  16  :  9,  was  wanting, 
according  to  the  statements  of  the  Fathers,  iuagreatmany  ancient  mss.  ;  that  it  is  not 
found  at  the  present  day  in  either  of  the  two  most  ancient  documents,  the  Sinaitic  or 
Vatican  ;  that  the  earliest  trace  of  it  occurs  in  Ireuseus  ;  and  that  an  entirely  differ- 
ent conclusion,  bearing,  however,  much  moie  evidently  the  impress  of  a  later  eccle- 
siastical style,  is  the  reading  of  some  other  documents.  If,  then,  the  conclusion 
found  in  the  received  text  is  not  from  the  hand  of  the  author,  still  it  is  earlier  than  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  Wenmstalso  admit  that  no  considerable  interval  could 
haveelapsed  between  ihe  composition  of  the  Gospel  aud  the  composition  of  this  conclu- 
sion ;  for  the  discourbc,  verse  15  e<  scq.  is  too  original  to  be  a  mere  compilation  : 
further,  it  must  have  been  drawn  up  from  materials  dating  from  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  ;  aud  the  remarkable  agreement  which  exists  between  the 
ending,  verses  19  and  20,  and  the  general  thought  of  the  book,  proves  that  whoever 
composed  this  conclusion  had  fully  entered  into  the  miud  of  the  author.  The  latter 
must  have  been  suddenly  interrupted  in  his  work  ;  for  IG  :  8  could  never  have  been 
the  intended  conclusion  of  his  narrative.  x\.n  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  is 
announced  (5  :  1-8),  and  the  narrative  ought  to  finish  without  giviug  an  account  of 
this.  Besides,  verse  9  is  quite  a  fresh  beginning,  for  there  is  an  evident  break  of 
connection  between  this  verse  and  verse  8. 

From  all  these  considerations,  it  follows  that  at  verse  8  the  work  was  suddenly 
suspended,  and  that  a  short  time  after,  u  writer,  who  was  still  in  the  current  of  the 
author's  thought,  and  who  might  have  had  the  advantage  of  some  materials  prepared 
by  him,  drew  up  this  conclusion.  Now,  if  up  to  16  :  8  the  Gospel  of  Luke  has  exer- 
cised no  influence  on  Mark's  work,  and  if,  on  the  contrary,  from  16:9  there  is  a  per- 
ceptible influence  of  the  former  on  the  latter,  there  is  only  one  inference  to  be  drawn 
— namely,  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  appeared  in  tlie  interval  between  the  composition 
of  Mark  and  the  writing  of  its  conclusion.  In  order,  then,  to  fix-  the  date  of  the  pub- 
lication of  our  Gospel,  it  becomes  important  to  know  by  what  circumstance  the  author 
of  the  second  Gospel  was  interrupted  in  his  work.  The  only  probable  explanation  of 
this  fact,  as  it  appears  to  us,  is  the  unexpected  outbreak  of  Nero's  persecution  iu 
August,  64,  just  the  time  wheu  Mark  was  at  Rome  with  Peter.  At  the  request  of  the 
faithful  belonging  to  this  church,  he  had  undertaken  to  write  the  narratives  of  this 
apostle,  in  other  words,  the  composition  of  our  second  Gospel.  The  persecution 
which  broke  out,  and  the  violent  death  of  his  master,  probably  forced  him  to  take 
precipitous  flight  from  the  capital.  It  is  only  necessary  to  suppose  that  a  copy  of  the 
yet  unfinished  work  remained  in  the  hands  of  some  Roman  Christian,  and  was 
deposited  in  the  archives  of  his  church,  to  explain  how  the  Gospel  at  first  got  into 
circulation  iu  its  incomplete  form.  When,  a  little  while  after,  some  one  set  to  wo:kto 
complete  it,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  had  appeared,  aud  was  cousulted.  The  work, 
finished  by  help  of  Luke's  Gospel,  was  copied  aud  circulated  in  this  new  form.  In 
this  way  the  existence  of  the  two  kinds  of  copies  is  explained.  The  year  64  would 
then  be  the  t^rininus  a  quo  of  the  publication  of  Luke.    On  the  other  hand,  the  writing 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  9 

of  the  conclusion  of  'Mark  must  have  preceded  the  publication,  or  at  least  the  diffu- 
siou.  of  the  Gospel  of  ]\Ialllie\v.  Otherwise  the  cnntiuuator  cf  Mark  would  certainly 
have  given  it  the  preftrence,  because  its  narrative  bears  au  iutiuitely  closer  reseni. 
blance  than  Luke's  to  the  account  he  was  completinu;.  The  composition  of  the 
canonical  conclusion  of  3Iark  would  then  be  prior  to  the  dillusion  of  our  Matthew, 
and  consequently  before  the  close  of  the  first  century,  when  this  writing  was  already 
cluihed  with  a  divine  authority  equal  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament  (p.  11).  Now, 
since  the  conclusion  of  ^lark  implies  the  existence  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  we  see  to 
what  a  hiirh  antiquity  these  facts,  when  taken  together,  oblige  us  to  refer  the  com- 
position of  tl>e  latter. 

The  otlier  biblical  writing  which  presents  a  point  of  connection  with  our  Gospel  is 
the  book  of  the  Acts.  From  its  opening  verses,  this  writing  supposes  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  already  composed  and  known  to  its  readers.  When  was  the  book  of  the  Acts 
composed  ?  From  the  fact  that  it  terminates  so  suddenly  with  the  mention  of  Paul's 
captivity  at  Rome  (spring  03  to  G4),  it  has  often  been  concluded  that  events  had  pro- 
ceeded just  thus  far  at  the  time  the  work  was  composed.  This  conclusion,  it  is  true, 
is  hasty,  for  it  may  have  been  the  author's  intentioa  only  to  curry  his  story  as  far  as 
the  apostle's  arrival  at  Rome.  His  book  w^as  not  intended  to  be  a  biography  of  ihe 
apostles  generall}',  nor  of  Peter  and  Paul  in  particular  ;  it  was  the  work  that  was 
important  to  him.  not  the  workmen.  Nevertheless,  when  we  observe  the  fulness  of 
the  narrative,  especially  in  the  latter  parts  of  the  work  ;  when  we  see  the  author 
relating  the  minutest  details  of  the  tempest  and  Paul's  shipwreck  (27),  and  mention- 
ing even  the  sign  of  the  ship  which  carried  the  apostle  to  Italy  (28  :  11) — "  A  ship  of 
Alexandria,  whose  sign  was  Ctistor  and  Pollux") — it  cannot  be  reasonably  maintained 
that  it  was  a  rigorous  adherence  to  his  plan  which  prevented  his  giving  his  readers 
some  details  respecting  the  end  of  this  ministry,  and  the  martyrdom  of  his  master. 
Or  might  he  have  proposed  to  make  this  the  subject  of  a  third  work  ?  Had  he  a  mind 
to  compose  a  trilogy,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Greek  tragedians  ?  The  idea  of  a  third 
work  might  no  doubt  be  suggested  to  him  afterward  by  subsequent  events  ;  and  this 
appears  to  be  the  sense  of  certain  obscure  words  in  the  famous  fragment  of  jMuratori. 
But  it  is  not  very  probable  that  snch  an  intention  could  have  determined  his  oiiginal 
plan,  and  influenced  the  composition  of  his  two  foi'mer  works.  What  matter  could 
appear  to  the  author  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  i)]aced  on  a  level,  as  the  subject  cf 
a  rp/rof  Anyoi,  with  the  coutents  of  the  Gospel  or  the  Ads?  Or,  lastly,  was  it  the 
premature  death  of  the  author  which  came  and  put  an  end  to  his  labor?  There  is 
no  ground  for  this  supposition.  Tlie  conclusion.  Acts  28  :  30  and  31,  while  resem- 
bling analogous  conclusions  at  theend  of  each  narrative  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts, 
Las  rather  the  effect  of  a  closing  period  intentionally  affixed  to  the  entir-e  book.  We 
are  then,  in  fact,  brought  back  to  the  idea  that  Paul's  career  was  not  yet  finished 
when  the  author  of  the  Acts  tei'miuated  his  narrative,  and  wrote  tire  last  two  verses 
of  chap.  28  ;  since,  were  this  not  the  case,  fidelit}^  to  his  plan  would  in  no  way  have 
I)revented  his  giving  some  details  on  a  subject  so  interesting  to  his  readers.  The 
book  of  the  Acts,  therefore,  does  not  api)ear  to  have  1  een  written  very  long  after  the 
time  which  forms  tlie  termination  of  the  narrative.  This  conclusion,  if  well  founded, 
applies  a  fortiori  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 

To  sum  up  :  the  use  which  was  made  of  the  third  Gospel  at  Rome,  in  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  by  Justin,  Marcion,  and  his  master  Cerdo,  and  the  apostolic 
authority  implied  in  the  diffusion  of  this  work,  and  in  tho  respect  it  enjoyed  at  thii 


10  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

period,  oblige  us  to  admit  its  existence  as  early  as  tlie  beginning  of  this  cenlurj',  A 
veiy  recent  book  could  not  have  been  knov>'u  and  used  thus  simultaaeuusly  in  the 
Church  and  by  the  seels.  The  place  which  the  Acts  held  in  collections  of  the  saeied 
•writings  at  the  epoch  of  the  "  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs"  (toward  the  end 
of  the  first  or  the  commencement  of  the  second  century),  sends  us  back  a  litllc 
further,  to  about  80-100.  Lastly,  the  relations  of  the  third  Gospel  to  ]\Iaik  and  tht; 
Acts  carry  us  to  an  epoch  still  mure  remote,  even  as  far  back  as  the  period  from  G4 
lo  80. 

An  objection  to  this  result  has  been  found  in  the  silence  of  Papias — a  silence 
•which  Hiigenfekl  has  even  thought  an  indication  of  positive  rejection  on  the  part  of 
this  Father.  But  because  Eusebius  has  only  preserved  ihe  information  furnished  by 
Papias  respecting  the  compo«ilion  of  Mark  and  Matthew — only  a  few  lines  altogether 
— it  does  not  follow  that  Pa[jias  did  not  know  Luke,  or  that,  if  he  knew,  he  rejected 
him.  All  that  can  reasonably  be  inferred  from  this  silence  is,  that  Eusebius  had  not 
found  anything  of  interest  in  Papias  as  to  the  origin  of  Luke's  book.  And  what  is 
there  surprising  in  that?  Matthew  and  Mark  had  cnnmieuced  their  narratives  with- 
out giving  the  smallest  detail  respecting  the  composition  of  their  books  ;  Luke,  on 
the  contrary,  in  his  preface,  had  told  his  readers  all  they  needed  to  know.  There  was 
no  tradition,  then,  current  on  this  point,  and  so  Papais  had  found  nothing  new  to 
add  to  the  Information  given  by  the  author. 

We  ought  to  say,  in  concludmg  this  review,  that  we  do  not  attach  a  decisive 
value  to  the  facts  we  have  just  noticed,  and  that  among  the  results  ai rived  at  there 
are  several  which  we  are  quite  awaie  are  not  indisputable.*  Nevertheless,  it  has 
appeared  to  us  that  there  were  some  interesting  concidences  {points  de  repere)  which  a 
careful  study  of  the  subject  should  not  overlouk.  The  only  fact  wiiich  appears  to  us 
absolutely  decisive  is  the  ecclesiastical  and  lituigical  use  of  our  Gospel  in  the  churches 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  as  it  is  established  by  Justin.  If  this  book  ically 
formed  part  of  those  "  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  which  he  declared  to  the  emperor 
weie  publicly  read  every  Sunday  in  the  Christian  asseml)lies,  the  apostolic  antiquity 
of  this  l)ook  must  have  been  a  fact  of  public  notoriety,  and  all  the  more  that  it  did 
not  bear  the  name  of  an  apostle  at  the  head  of  it. 

SEC.    II. — THE   AUTHOR. 

Under  this  title  are  included  two  distinct  questions  :  I.  "What  do  we  know  of  the 
person  designated  in  the  title  as  the  author  of  our  Gospel  ?  II.  By  what  ecclesiasiical 
testimonies  is  the  composition  of  this  book  traced  to  him,  and  what  is  their  •worth  ? 


The  person  named  Luke  is  only  mentioned  in  certain  passages  of  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment, and  in  some  few  brief  ecclesiastical  traditions. 

The  biblical  passages  are  :  Col.  4  :  14,  "  Luke,  the  beloved  physican,  and  Demas, 
greet  you  ;"  Philem.  24,  "  There  salute  thee  Epaphras,  my  fellow-prisoner  in  Christ 
Jesus;  Marcus,  Aristarchus,  Demas,  Lucas,  my  fellow-laborers;"  2  Tim.  4  :  IL 
"  Only  Luke  is  with  me." 

*  "We  ought  to  emphasize  this  reservation,  in  view  of  some  reviews  in  which  we 
have  been  blamed  for  dealing  here  too  largel}'  in  hypothesis. 


c'oaimk:stary  ox  st.  lukk.  11 

These  passages,  consitlered  iu  their  context,  yield  these  results  : 

1.  That  Liiko  was  a,  Cliristiua  of  Pagan  origin.  This  is  proved  beyond  duubt  in 
the  lirst  passaire  by  the  distinction  between  the  group  of  Christians  ot  the  circumcidoii 
(verses  10,  11),  and  the  foliowin";:  group  to  which  Lul^e  belongs  (verses  12-14).  The 
olijeclion  which  has  been  taken  to  this  exegelical  inference,  on  the  ground  of  an 
Aramaean  tincture  of  style  in  many  passages  of  Luke,  has,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  no 
force.  Accordingly.  St.  Luke  would  be  the  only  author,  among  those  who  were 
called  to  write  the  Scriptures,  who  was  not  of  Jewish  origin. 

2.  The  circumstance  tliat  his  profession  was  that  of  aphymdan  is  not  unimpor- 
tant ;  for  it  implies  that  he  must  have  possessed  a  certain  amount  of  scienlificknowl- 
edge,  and  belonged  to  the  class  of  educated  men.  There  existed  at  Rome,  in  the 
time  of  the  emperors,  u  medical  supervision  ;  a  superior  college  {Collegium  arcJiiairo- 
iiiiu)  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  examining  in  every  city  those  who  desired  to 
practise  the  healing  art.  Newly  admitted  men  were  placed  under  the  direction  of 
older  physicians  ;  their  modes  of  treatment  were  slriclly  scrutinized,  and  their  mis- 
takes severely  punished,  sometimes  by  taking  away  their  diploma.*  For  these 
reasons,  Luke  must  have  possessed  an  amount  of  scientific  and  literary  culture  above 
that  of  most  of  the  other  evangelists  and  apostles. 

3.  Luke  was  the  fellow-laborer  of  Paul  in  his  mission  to  the  heathen,  a  fellow- 
laborer  ^m<%  beloved  (Col.  4  :  14)  au<i  faithful  (2  Tim.  4  ;  9-12). 

But  here  arises  an  impoitant  question.  Does  the  connection  which  has  just  been 
proved  between  Paul  and  Luke  date,  as  Bleek  thinks,  only  from  the  apostle's  sojoum 
at  Rome— a  city  in  whicli  Luke  had  long  been  established  as  a  physician,  and  w  here 
he  had  been  converted  by  Paul  ?  Or  had  Luke  already  become  the  companion  of 
the  apostle  before  his  arrival  at  Rome,  and  had  he  taken  part  in  his  missionaiy  toils 
in  Greece  or  in  Asia?  The  solution  of  this  question  depends  on  the  way  iu  which 
we  regard  a  certain  number  of  passages  in  the  Acts,  iu  which  the  author  passes  all 
at  once  from  the  third  person,  they,  to  the  form  of  the  first  person,  tee.  If  it  is  ad- 
milted  (1)  that  Luke  is  the  author  of  the  Acts  (a  question  which  we  cannot  yet  deal 
with),  and  (2)  that  the  author,  in  thus  expressing  himself,  wishes  to  intimate  that  at 
certain  times  he  shared  the  apostle's  work,  it  is  evident  that  our  knowledge  of  his  life 
will  be  considerably  enriched  by  these  passages.  It  is  only  this  second  question  that 
we  shall  examine  here. 

The  passages  of  which  we  speak  are  three  iu  number  :  IG  :  10-17  ;  20  :  5-31.  17  ; 
27  :  1-28,  16.  Here  several  suppositions  are  possible  :  Either  Luke,  the  author  of 
the  entile  book,  describes  in  the  first  person  the  scenes  in  which  he  was  himself 
present  ;  or  the  author,  either  Luke  or  some  Christian  of  the  first  age,  inscits  in  his 
work  such  and  such  fragments  of  a  traveller's  journal  kept  by  one  of  Paul's  com])an- 
ions— by  Timothy  or  Silas,  for  example  ;  or,  lastly,  a  forger  of  later  times,  wiiii  a 
view  to  accredit  his  work  and  make  it  pass  for  Luke's,  to  whom  he  ventures  to 
attribute  it,  introduces  into  it  some  fragments  of  Luke,  changing  their  substance  and 
remodelling  thtir  form,  but  purposely  allowing  the  first  person  to  sland  in  these  por- 
tions. The  first  supposition  is  the  one  that  has  been  most  geueially  admitted  from 
ancient  times  ;  the  second  has  been  maintained  l)y  Schleiermacher  and  Bleek,  who 
attribute  the  journal,  whence  these  portions  are  taken  to  Timothy  ;  also  by  Schwaii- 
beck,  who  makes  it  the  work  of  Silas  ;  the  third  is  the  hypothesis  defended  byZeller. 

*  Tholuck,  "  Die  Glaubwurdigk.  der  ev.  Geseh."  p.  149  (according  to  Galen). 


12  COMMEXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

If  the  first  explanation  is  the  most  ancient,  it  is  because  it  is  tliat  which  most 
naturally  occurs  to  the  mind.  After  the  author,  at  the  beginning  of  his  book,  had 
made  use  of  the  first  person^  "The  former  treatise  luive  Imade,  O  Theophilus," 
Avould  it  not  be  evident  to  his  readers  that  when,  in  the  course  of  the  narrative,  he 
came  to  say  ice  it  was  with  the  intention  of  indicating  himself  as  a  witness  of  the 
facts  related  ?  If  he  had  borrowed  these  fragments  from  the  iournii.1  of  anolhei-, 
why  did  he  not  assimilate  them  in  form  to  the  rest  of  the  narrative  ?  Surely  it  was 
not  difficult  for  such  a  writer  as  lie  was  to  change  the  first  person  iato  the  third.  It 
is  maintained  that  the  author  is  an  unskilled  writer,  who  does  no«  know  how  to  work 
up  hisj^iaterials  ;  but  Zeller  rightly  replies  that  the  unity  of  style,  aim,  and  method 
which  prevails  throughout  the  book  of  tlie  Acts,  proves,  on  the  contiary,  that  the 
author  has  liiade  very  skilful  use  of  the  documents  at  his  disposal.  De  Wette  him- 
silf,  although  a  supporter  of  Schleiermacher's  theory,  is  obliged  to  acknowledge  this. 
And  if  this  is  so,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  how  the  author  could  have  allowed  this 
we  to  stand.  Besides,  this  explanation  has  to  contend  with  other  dilficulties.  If 
this  pronoun  \oe  emanates  from  the  pen  of  Timoth}^  liow  is  it  that  it  does  not  come 
in  at  the  moment  when  Timothy  enters  on  the  scene  and  joins  Paul  and  Silas? 
How  is  it,  again,  that  it  suddenly  disappears,  although  Timothy  continues  the  journey 
with  Paul  (from  his  departure  from  Philippi  and  during  his  entire  stay  in  Achaia, 
Acts  18  ;  corap,  with  1  and  2  Thess.  1:1)?  Above  ail,  how  is  it  that  this  zee  is 
resumed,  20  :  5,  in  a  passage  in  which  the  wiiter  who  thus  designates  himself  is 
expresdy  opposed  to  a  number  of  persons,  among  whom  figures  Timothy  ?  Bleek  tries 
to  draw  out  of  this  difficult}''  by  applying  the  pronoun  ovtol,  these,  verse  5,  simply  to 
the  last  two  of  the  persons  mentioned,  Tychicus  and  Trophimus.  But  eveiy  one 
must  feel  that  this  is  a  forced  explanation.  As  Zeller  says,  had  this  been  the  case,  it 
would  liave  been  necessary  to  have  said  ovtoi  ol  ovo,  tlLese  two. 

The  same  and  even  greater  difficulties  prevent  our  thinking  of  Silas,  since, 
according  to  the  Epistles,  after  their  stay  at  Corinth,  tliis  missionary  no  louger 
appears  in  company  with  Paul,  yet  the  we  goes  on  to  the  end  of  the  Acts.  As  to  the 
opinion  of  Zeller,  it  makes  the  author  an  impostor,  who  determined  to  assume  the 
mask  of  Luke  in  order  the  more  easily  to  obtain  credence  for  his  history.  But 
whence  comes  the  unanimous  tradition  which  attributes  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  to 
Luke,  when  he  is  never  once  named  in  these  works  as  their  author  ?  In  order  to 
explain  this  fact,  Zeller  is  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  a  fresh  hypothesis,  that  the 
forger  in  the  first  instance  had  inscribed  Luke's  name  at  the  head  of  his  work,  and 
that  afterward,  by  some  unknown  accident,  the  name  was  dropped,  although  the 
Church  had  fallen  completely  into  the  snare.  Can  a  more  improbable  supposition 
be  imagined  ?  The  ancient  exp'anation,  which  is  that  of  common-sense,  is,  after  all 
these  fruitless  attempts,  the  only  one  scientifically  admissible  :  the  author  of  the  Acts 
emplo3'ed  the  pronoun  we  in  every  case  in  which  he  himself  was  present  at  the  scenes 
described. 

To  this  exegetical  conclusion  only  two  objections  of  any  value  have  been  offered  : 
1.  The  sudden  character  of  the  appearance  aud  disappearance  of  the  pronoun  we  in 
the  narrative;.  A  companion  of  Paul,  it  is  said,  would  have  indicated  liow  it  was  he 
happened  to  be  with  the  apostle,  and  why  he  left  him.  2.  Schleiermacher  asks  how 
a  new-comer,  converted  only  yesterday,  could  have  expressed  himself  with  so  little 
modesty  as  :  "  immediately  ?fe  endeavored  .  .  .;  the  Lord  had  called  ws  .  .  ." 
(Acts  16  :  10).     But  huw  do  we  know  that  the  author  had  not  been  for  a  long  while 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LLKE.  13 

connected  with  the  apostle  when  he  met  with  him  at  Troas  (see  Sec.  3)  ?  Besides, 
wiis  not  Timothy  liimself  also  quite  a  recent  convert?  Tliat  the  writer  does  not 
explain  tlie  circumslauces  which  led  to  his  meetings  with  Paul  and  his  partings  from 
Lira,  is  in  accordance  wilh  that  modest  reticence  observed  by  the  sacred  writers  when- 
ever they  themselves  are  concerned.  The}'  avoid,  with  a  kind  of  shame,  whatever 
might  direct  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  themselves.  Obliged  by  fidelit\^  to  truth 
to  indicate  his  presence  wherever  he  formed  part  of  the  missionary  company,  the 
author  could  not  do  this  in  a  more  natural  and  modest  way  than  that  which  dispenses 
with  his  naming  himself.* 

On  the  supposition  that  Luke  is  the  author  of  the  Acts,  we  may  supplerhent  what 
we  know  about  him  by  the  information  supplied  by  those  passages  in  which  the  ice  is 
employed.  At  Troas,  where  he  was  when  Paul,  whom  he  had  known  perhaps  long 
before  (p.  21),  arrived  there,  he  joined  the  three  missionaries,  and  passed  wilh  them 
into  Europe.  lie  remained  at  Phillppi,  the  first  church  founded  on  this  continent, 
when  persecution  obliged  his  three  companions  to  leave  the  citj'.  For  the  we  ceases 
from  this  moment.  Since  this  pronoun  only  reappears  when  Paul  again  comes  to 
Philippi,  at  the  end  of  his  third  journey  (20  :  5),  it  follows  that  Luke  remained 
attached  to  this  church  during  the  second  and  third  missionary  journey  of  the  apostle, 
and  that  then  he  rejoined  him  in  order  to  accompany  him  to  Jerusalem.  And  as  the 
%ee  is  continued  to  the  end  of  the  book  (the  interruption,  21  :  17,  26:32,  not  being 
really  such),  Luke  must  have  remained  in  Palestine  with  the  apostle  during  the  time 
of  his  imprisonment  in  Ca?sarea.  This  explains  the  expression  (27  :  1) :  "  And  when 
it  was  determined  ice  should  sail  into  Italy."  Luke,  therefore,  with  Aristarchus 
(2^  :  2),  was  Paul's  companion  in  his  journey  to  Rome.  According  to  the  Epistles, 
from  that  time  to  the  end,  save  during  those  temporary  absences  when  he  was  called 
awa}'  in  the  service  of  the  gospel,  he  faithfully  shared  Paul's  sufferings  and  toil. 

Before  leaving  the  domain  of  Scripture,  we  must  mention  an  ingenious  conjecture, 
due  to  Thiersch,  which  appears  to  us  open  to  no  substantial  objection.  From  these 
words,  "  Only  Luke  is  with  me"  (2  Tim.  4  :  11),  compared  with  what  follows  almost 
immediately  (ver.  13),  "  Briug  wilh  thee  the  books,  and  especially  the  parchments, " 
this  writer  has  concluded  that  at  the  time  Paul  thus  wrote  he  was  occupied  iu  some 
literary  labor  for  which  these  manuscripts  were  required.  In  this  case  it  must  also 
be  admitted  that  Luke,  who  was  alone  with  him  at  the  time,  was  not  unacquainted 
with  this  labor,  if  even  it  was  not  his  own. 

These  results  obtained  from  Scripture  fit  in  without  difiiculty  with  a  piece  of 
information  supplied  by  the  Fathers.     Eusebius  and  Jerome  |  tell  us  that  Luke  was 

*  Bleek  objects,  further,  that  Luke  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Thes- 
salonians.  the  Corinthians,  and  the  Philippiaus.  But  if  Luke  remained  at  Piiili[)pi, 
why  should  he  be  mentioned  in  the  letters  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  were  written 
from  Achaia  a  little  later?  If  be  is  not  named  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Cornithians,  he 
appears  at  least  to  be  referred  to  as  one  of  the  most  emment  of  the  evangelists  of 
Greece,  2  Cor.  8  :  18  and  22  (though  it  is  not  certain  that  tiiis  passage  refers^to  him). 
And  what  necessity  was  there  that  he  should  be  named  in  these  letters?  As  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippiaus,  at  the  time  when  Paul  wrote  it,  it  might  very  well  happen 
that  Luke  was  neiliier  at  Home  nor  Piiilippi.  To  Bleek's  other  objection,  that  the 
author  of  llie  Acts  reckons  according  to  the  Jewish  calendar,  which  does  not  suit  a 
writer  of  heathen  origin,  Zeller  rightly  replies  that  "  in  the  case  of  a  companion  of 
Paul,  this  was  just  the  only  natural  mode  of  reckoning." 

f  "  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  4  ;  '"'  De  vir.  illuslr."  c.  7. 


14  COAIilENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

originally  from  Antioch.  Meyer  and  De  "Wette  see  in  this  nothing  but  au  esegetical 
conclusion,  drawn  from  Acts  13  :  1,  wliere  mention  is  made  of  one  Lucius  exeicisinj^ 
his  ministry  in  the  churcli  at  Antioch.  But  this  supposition  does  very  little  honor  to 
the  discernment  of  these  Fathers,  since  in  this  very  passage  Lucius  is  described  as 
originally  from  Cyrene  in  Africa.  Besides,  the  name  Lucius  (from  the  root  lux, 
lucerc)  has  quite  a  different  etymology  from  Lucas,  which  is  an  abbreviation  from 
Lucanus  (as  Silas  from  Silvanus,  etc.).  If  Luke  had  really  found  a  home  at  Antioch, 
we  can  understand  the  marked  predilection  with  which  the  foundation  of  the  church 
in  that  city  is  related  in  the  Acts.  In  the  lines  devoted  to  this  fact  (11  :  20-24)  there 
is  a  spirit,  animation,  and  freshness  which  reveal  the  charm  of  delightful  recollec- 
tions. And  in  this  way  we  easily  understand  the  manner  in  which  the  scene  at 
Troas  is  described  (16  :  10).  Paul  and  the  Gospel  were  old  acquaintances  to  Luke 
"when  he  joined  the  apostle  at  Troas. 

We  canuot,  on  the  other  hand,  allow  any  value  to  the  statement  of  Origen  and 
Epiphanius,  who  reckon  Luke  in  tlie  number  of  the  seventy  disciples  ;  this  opinion 
is  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  Luke  himself,  1  :  2.  Could  Luke  be,  accordmg  to 
the  opinion  referred  to  by  Theophylact,  that  one  of  the  two  disciples  of  Emmaus 
whose  name  is  not  recorded  ?  This  opinion  appears  to  be  a  conjecture  rather  than  a 
tradition.  The  historian  Nicephoius  Kallistus  (fourteenth  century)  makes  Luke  the 
painter  who  transmitted  to  the  church  the  portraits  of  Jesus  and  His  mother.  This 
information  rests,  perhaps,  as  Bleek  presumes,  on  a  confusion  of  our  evangelist  with 
some  ancient  painter  of  the  same  name.*  We  know  absolutely  nothing  certain  respect- 
ing the  latter  part  of  his  life.  The  passage  in  Jerome,  found  in  seme  old  editions  of 
the  De  viris,  according  to  which  Luke  lived  a  celibate  to  the  age  of  eighty-four  years, 
is  not  found  in  any  ancient  manuscript  ;  it  is  an  interpolation.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
(Orat.  iii.  Advers.  Julian.)  is  the  first  who  confers  on  him  the  honor  of  maitjTdom  ; 
Xicephorus  maintains  that  he  was  hanged  on  au  olive-tree  in  Greece  at  the  age  of 
eighty  j^ears.  These  are  just  so  many  legends,  the  origin  of  which  we  have  no 
means  of  ascertaining.  It  appears,  however,  that  there  was  a  widespread  tradition 
that  he  ended  his  days  in  Achaia.  For  there,  according  to  Jerome  (De.  vir.  ill.  c.  7), 
the  Emperor  Constantine  sought  for  his  ashes  to  transport  them  to  Constantinople. 
Isidore  maintains  that  they  were  brought  frouj  Bithyaia. 

Is  this  person  really  the  author  of  our  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  ?  We  have  to 
study  the  testimonies  on  which,  historically  speaking,  this  opinion  rests. 

II. 

1.  At  the  basis  of  all  the  particular  testimonies  we  must  place  the  general  opinion 
of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  its  title,  "  according  to  Luke."  There  was  but  one  con- 
viction on  this  point  in  the  second  century,  from  one  extremity  of  the  Church  to  the 
other,  as  we  can  still  prove  by  the  ancient  versions  in  the  Syriac  and  Latin  tongues, 
the  Peschito  and  the  Italic.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  prep,  /cara,  according  to,  in 
this  title,  see  the  exegesis.  We  will  only  observe  here,  that  if  this  preposition  could 
bear  the  sense  of  "  in  the  manner  of,  after  the  example  of,"  in  the  case  of  Matthew 
and  John,  who  were  apostles,  and  therefore  original  authors  of  an  evangelical  tra- 

*  We  can  only  cite  as  critical  fancies  the  opinion  of  Kohlreif,  which  identifies 
Luke  and  Silas  {lucns  =  silva),  and  that  of  Lange,  who  makes  Luke  tlie  same  person 
as  the  Aristion  of  Papias  {lucere  =  apiarEveiv). 


COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LLKE.  15 

dition,  this  explanation  becomes  impossible  wiiea  applied  to  "Murk  and  Luke,  who, 
(jince  they  never  accompanied  Jesus,  could  not  assume  the  part  of  creators  of  a 
special  tradition,  but  could  only  be  designated  compders. 

2.  The  first  special  testimony  is  implied  in  a  passage  of  Justin  Martyr,  ■who,  iu 
reference  to  Jesus'  sweat  in  Gethsemane,  saj-s  :  *  "As  that  is  related  in  the  memoiis 
(cnrofinifiovev/^aTa),  which  I  say  were  composed  b}''  His  apostles  and  by  their  com- 
panions." Il  appears  to  us  indisputable  (although  criticism  has  sought  other  inter- 
pretftious),  that  among  those  books  which  Justin  possessed,  and  of  which  he  speaks 
elsewhere  as  "  the  memoirs  which  are  called  Gospels,"  there  must  have  been,  accord- 
ing to  this  passage,  at  least  two  Gospels  emanating  from  apostles,  and  two  proceeding 
from  coadjutors  of  the  apostles.  And  as  the  incident  to  which  this  Falher  here 
alludes  is  only  recorded  in  Luke,  Justin  regarded  the  author  of  this  book  as  one  of  the 
men  who  had  accompanied  the  apostles. 

3.  In  the  fragment  asciibed  to  Muratori,  written  about  180,  and  containing  the 
tradition  of  the  churches  of  Italy  respecting  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
read  as  follows  :  "  Thirdly,  the  book  of  the  Gospel  according  to  !St.  Luke.  This 
Luke,  a  physician,  when  Paul,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  had  received  him  among 
his  followers  as  a  person  zealous  for  righteousness  {juris  studionum),  wrote  in  his  own 
name  and  according  to  his  own  judgment  (ex  opinione).  Neither,  again,  had  he  him- 
self seen  the  Lord  in  the  flesh.  Carrying  his  narrative  as  far  back  as  he  could  obtain 
information  {prout  assequi,  potuit),  he  commenced  with  the  birth  of  John."  After 
having  spoken  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  author  passes  on  to  the  Acts  :  "  The  Acts 
of  all  the  Apostles,"  he  says,  "  are  written  in  a  single  book.  Luke  has  included  in 
it,  for  the  excellent  Theophilus,  all  that  took  place  in  his  presence  ;  as  also  he  clearly 
points  out  in  a  separate  form  {scmoie)  not  only  the  suffering  of  Peter,  but  further, 
Paul's  departure  from  Rome  for  Spain." 

With  the  exception  of  the  name  of  Luke,  which  is  derived  from  the  tradition 
received  throughout  the  entire  Church,  this  testimony  respecting  the  Gospel  seems 
to  us  nothing  more  than  a  somewhat  bold  reproduction  of  the  contents  of  Luke's 
preface,  combined  with  the  information  supplied  by  Col.  4  :  14  as  to  his  profession. 
"  In  his  own  name  :"  that  is  to  say,  in  obedience  to  an  mward  impulse,  on  his  own 
personal  responsibility  ;  not  in  the  name  of  an  apostle  or  a  church  ;  an  allusion  to  "  It 
hath  appeared  good  to  me  also"  (1  :  ii).  "  According  to  his  own  judgment : "  an  allu- 
sion to  the  fact  that  his  narrative  was  not  that  of  an  eye-witness,  but  in  accordance 
with  the  opinion  he  had  formed  of  the  facts  by  help  of  tradition  and  his  own  re. 
searches  (1  :  2).  "  Neither  again"  had  he  himself  seen  :  any  more  than  Mark,  of  whom 
the  author  of  the  fragment  had  just  spoken.  The  expression,  "  as  he  could  obtain 
information,"  refers  to  what  Luke  says  of  the  care  ho  had  taken  to  go  back  as  far  as 
possible,  and  to  narrate  events  in  the  best  order.  The  term  ^i^m  studiosum  (which 
Hi'genfeld  supposes  to  be  the  translation  of  tov  dcKalov  i^ri^uTr/v  ,  in  the  original 
Greek,  which  he  admits)  might  also  be  translated,  a  man  skilled  in  questions  of  legal 
right  ;  able,  consequently,  to  make  himself  useful  to  Paul  whenever  he  had  to  deal 
with  the  Roman  tribunals.  But  the  terra  i^-nlu-rji  rather  favors  the  sense  we 
have  given  in  our  translation.  If  the  passage  relating  to  the  Acts  has  been  accu- 
rately rendered  into  Latin,  or  if  the  text  of  it  has  not  been  altered,  we  might  infer 
from  it  that  Luke  had  narrated,  in  a  third  work  {semote,  separately),  the  subsequent 

*  "Dial.  c.  Tryph."c.  22. 


16  COMMEKTARY    0:S   ST.   LUKE. 

history  of  Peter  and  Paul.  In  any  case,  the  whole  testimony  is  remarkable  for  its 
very  sobriely.  It  does  not  show  the  slightest  tendency,  any  mure  than  the  preface 
of  the  evangelist  himself,  to  ascribe  divine  authority  to  this  writing.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  human  aspect  of  the  work  comes  out  very  strongly  in  these  expressions  : 
**  in  his  own  name,  according  to  his  judgment,  as  far  as  he  was  able  to  obtain  informal 
lion."  Perhaps  the  author  wished  to  contrast  this  entirely  natural  mode  of  composi- 
tion with  the  widely  different  origin  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  he  describes 
directly  afterward. 

4.  At  the  same  period,  Irenaeus  expresses  himself  thus  respecting  the  third  Gospel 
(xVdv.  User.  iii.  1) :  "  Luke,  a  companion  of  Paul,  wrote  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached 
by  the  latter."  Ireuseus  quotes  from  our  Gospel  more  tlian  eighty  times.  This  testi- 
mony and  the  preceding  are  the  first  two  in  which  Luke  is  indicated  by  name  as  the 
author  of  this  book. 

5.  TertuUian,  in  his  book  "Against  Marcion"  (iv.  2),  expresses  himself  thus  : 
"  Of  the  apostles,  John  and  Matthew  inspire  our  faith  ;  of  the  coadjutors  of  the 
apostles,  Luke  and  Mark  confirm  it."  He  reminds  Marcion  "that,  not  only  in  the 
churches  foimded  by  the  apostles,  but  in  all  those  which  are  united  to  them  by  the 
bond  of  the  Christian  mystery,  this  Gospel  of  Luke  has  been  received  without  con- 
tradiction {stare)  from  the  moment  of  its  publication,  while  the  greater  part  are  not 
even  acquainted  with  that  of  Marcion."  He  says,  lastly  (Ibid.  iv.  5),  "  that  several 
persons  of  his  time  have  been  accustomed  to  attribute  Luke's  work  to  Paul  him- 
self, as  well  as  Mark's  to  iPeter."  He  neither  pronounces  for  nor  against  this 
opinion. 

6.  Origen,  in  a  passage  cited  by  Eusebius  (H.  E.  vi.  35),  expressed  himself  thus  : 
"  Thirdly,  the  Gospel  according  to  Lake,  cited  approvingly  (inatvovfjevov)  by  Paul," 
It  appears  from  the  whole  passage  that  he  alludes,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  expression 
my  Gospel,  employed  three  times  b}"^  Paul  (Rom.  2  :  16  ;  16  :  25  ;  2  Tim.  1  :  8) ;  on 
the  other,  to  the  passage  2  Cor.  8  :  18,  19,  which  he  applied  to  Luke. 

7.  Eusebius  says  (H.  E.  iii.  4) :  "  It  is  maintained  that  it  is  of  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Luke  that  Paul  is  accustomed  to  speak  whenever  he  makes  mention  ia  his 
wi  itings  of  7iis  Gospel. ' ' 

8.  Jerome  (De  vir.  ill.  c.  7)  also  refers  to  this  opinion,  but  attributes  it  to  "some 
persons"  only  {quidam  suspicantur). 

We  have  three  observations  to  make  on  these  testimonies. 

1.  If  they  are  somewhat  late — it  is  only  about  a.d.  180  that  Luke's  name  appears 
— we  must  observe,  on  the  other  hand,  that  they  are  not  the  expression  of  the  indi- 
vidual opinion  of  the  writers  in  whose  works  they  occur,  but  appear  iucidentally  as 
the  expression  of  the  ancient,  unbroken,  and  undisputed  conviction  of  .the  entire 
Church.  These  writers  give  expression  to  the  fact  as  a  matter  of  which  no  one  was 
ignorant.  They  would  not  have  dreamed  of  announcing  it,  unless  some  special  cir- 
cumstance had  called  for  it.  The  ecclesiastical  character,  at  once  universal  and  he- 
reditary, of  these  testimonies,  even  when  they  dale  only  from  the  second  century 
enable  us  to  ascertain  the  conviction  of  the  first.  In  fact,  what  prevailed  then  was 
not  individual  criticism,  but  tradition.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  after  having  quoted  a 
passage  from  the  "  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians"  (Strom,  iii.  p.  465),  immediately  adds  : 
"  But  we  have  not  seen  this  passage  in  the  four  Gospels  which  have  been  transmitted 
to  ns  {ev  To'ic  Tr<ipa^c^ofi£voiS  y/ilv  TEaaapaiv  Eiayye?,ioic).'"  The  Bishop  Serapion  having 
found,  in  the  parish  church  of  Rhodes,  in  Cilicia,  a  so-called  Gospel  of  Peter,  contain- 


COilMEXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  17 

ing  Gnostic  sentiments,  wrote  a  letter  to  those  who  made  use  of  it,  a  portion  of  which 
lias  been  preserved  by  Eusebius  (H.  E.  vi.  12,  ed.  Lccmmer),  and  it  ends  with  these 
words  :  "  Knowing  well  that  such  writings  have  not  been  transmitted  {on  tu  Totaiira 
[i/)fi'(5eTt}pai?rt I  oil  nape?uii3o^ev)."  The  traditional  origin  of  the  convictions  of  the 
Church  respecting  the  origin  of  the  sacred  writings  is  the  only  explanation  of  their 
stability  and  universality.  An  opinion  formed  upon  individuiil  criticism  could  never 
have  had  these  characteristics.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  tradition  respecting 
our  Gospel  is  not  disowned  even  by  the  ecclesiastical  parties  most  opposed  to  Paul. 
Irenajus  (iii.  1."))  declares  that  the  Ebionites  made  use  of  our  Gospel,  and  we  can  prove 
it  ourselve.>5  by  the  quotations  from  the  writings  of  Luke  which  we  find  in  the  "  Clem- 
entine Homilies"  (ix.  23  ;  xix.  2).  The  plot  even  of  this  religious  romance  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  book  of  the  Acts.  Now,  in  order  that  parties  so  opposed  to  each  other, 
as  Marcion  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Ebionites  on  the  other,  should  airree  in  making 
use  of  our  Gospel,  the  conviction  of  its  antiquity  and  authority  must  have  been  very 
ancient  and  verj'  firmly  established  {sialic,  Tert.).  There  is  another  fact  more  strik- 
ing still.  The  onl}^  sect  of  the  second  century  which  appears  to  have  expressly 
rejected  the  book  of  the  Acts,  that  of  the  Severians,  took  no  exception  to  the  Gospel 
of  Luke.  These  results  perfectly  agree  with  those  to  which  we  were  led  by  the  facts 
enumerated.  Sec.  1.  Thus  the  blank  that  exists  between  the  first  positive  testimonies 
which  we  meet  with  in  the  second  century  and  the  apostolic  age  is  filled  up  by 
fact. 

2.  It  is  important  to  observe  the  gradual  change  in  the  tradition  which  manifests 
itself  during  the  coui-se  of  the  second  and  third  centuries.  The  nearer  we  approach 
its  original  sources,  the  more  sober  the  tradition.  In  the  eyes  of  Justin,  the  author 
of  our  Gospel  is  simply  a  companion  of  the  apostles.  In  the  fragment  of  Muratoii 
the  same  information  reappears  without  amplification.  Strictly  speaking,  Irena'us 
does  not  go  beyond  this  ;  only  he  already  aims  to  establish  a  connection  between  the 
willing  of  Luke  and  the  preaching  of  Paul.  Tertulliau  notices  an  opinion  prevalent 
in  his  lime  which  goes  nmch  farther— namely,  that  Paul  liimself  was  the  author  of 
this  Gospel.  Last  of  all.  Origeu  distinctly  declares  that  when  Paul  said  rnp  GohjkI, 
he  meant  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  This  progression  is  just  what  we  want  to  enable  us 
to  verify  the  real  historical  character  of  the  tradition  in  its  primitive  form.  If  the 
original  information  had  been  invented  under  the  influence  of  the  apologetic  interest 
which  moulded  the  ti-adition  later  on,  would  it  not  have  begun  where  it  ended  ? 

3.  The  supposition  that  the  name  of  Luke,  which  has  been  allixed  to  our  Gospel, 
was  merely  an  hypothesis  of  the  Fathers,  gives  no  explanation  why  they  should  have 
preferred  a  man  so  seldom  named  as  Luke,  instead  of  fixing  tlieir  choice  on  one  of 
those  fellow-laborers  of  the  apostle  that  were  better  known,  such  as  Timothy,  Silas, 
or  Titus,  whom  muderu  criticism  has  thought  of.  The  obscurity  in  which  this  per- 
sonage would  be  veiled,  if  his  name  did  not  figure  at  the  head  of  the  writings  which 
are  attributed  to  him,  is  one  of  the  best  guarantees  of  the  tradition  which  declares 
him  the  author  of  them.  We  do  not  see,  then,  what,  in  a  historic  point  of  view, 
could  invalidate  the  force  of  the  ecclesiastical  testimony  on  this  point  ;  and  we  agree 
with  Iloltzmann  ("Die  synopt.  Evang."  p.  377),  when  he  saj's  liiat  "this  ti-adition 
is  only  to  be  rejected  from  the  point  where  it  proceeds  to  place  the  composition  of 
our  Gospel  under  the  guarantee  of  Paul  himself." 

Three  opinions  have  been  put  foith  by  modern  criticism  on  the  question  under 
consideration. 


18  COMMENTARY  ON"  ST.  LUJvE. 

1.  An  "  anonj'mcns  Saxon,"  *  while  declaring  that  our  Gospel  is  nothing  but  a 
tissue  of  falsehoods,  a  pamphlet  composed  out  of  hatred  of  Peter  and  the  Twelve, 
boldly  attributes  it  to  Paul  himself. 

2.  Hilgenfeld,  Zeller,  etc.,  thiuk  that  this  writing  is  the  work  of  an  unknown 
Christian  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 

3.  Most  admit,  in  conformity  with  the  traditional  opinion,  that  the  author  is  the 
Luke  m'entioned  in  Paul's  Epistles.  We  only  mention,  to  show  that  we  have  not  for- 
gotten it,  the  opinion  of  Mayerhoff,  never  adopted  by  any  one  else,  and  which  was 
only  the  very  logical  consequence  of  Schleiermacher's  on  the  portions  in  which  we 
occurs  in  the  book  of  the  Acts — namely,  that  our  Gospel,  as  well  as  these  portions, 
should  be  attributed  to  Timothy. 

8EC.    III. — COMPOSITIOX    OP   THE   THIRD   GOSPEL. 

We  possess  nothing  from  tradition  but  some  scanty  and  uncertain  information  re- 
specting the  origin  of  our  Gospel. 

I.  As  to  the  time,  the  greater  part  of  the  critics  are  wrong  in  making  Irengeus  say 
that  Luke  wrote  after  the  death  (or  the  departure  from  Rome)  of  Peter  and  Paul 
{jjost  horum  exccfisum,  iii.  1).  This  is  a  false  conclusion  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
Ireuaeus  speaks  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  after  that  of  Mark,  to  which  this  chronologi- 
cal statement  applies.  The  order  in  which  this  Father  here  speaks  of  the  Gos-pcls 
and  their  origin  may  be  simply  the  order  of  these  books  in  the  canon,  and  in  no  way 
of  the  date  of  their  composition.  We  find  in  this  same  Irena3us  (ui.  9,  10)  the  follow- 
ing order  :  Matthew,  Luke,  Mark. 

The  only  real  traditional  information  which  we  possess  on  this  point  is  that  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  states  it  as  a  fact  transmitted  by  the  ]iresbyters  who 
have  succeeded  each  other  from  the  beginning  {a-o  tcjv  avfuaOei^  npea,3v-tpuv),  "  that 
the  Gospels  con'aiuing  tlie  genealogies  were  written  fiist  {irpoyeypd^f^aL  rioi  evayyeliuv 
Tu  nepiExov-a  nif  yEVEa?,oyLai)."  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  14.  According  to  this,  Matthew 
and  Luke  were  composed  before  Mark.  Further,  since,  according  to  this  very  Clem- 
ent and  these  same  authorities,  Mark  must  have  been  composed  at  Rome  during 
Peter's  life,  it  follows  that,  according  to  the  view  embodied  in  this  tradition,  Luke 
was  composed  prior  to  the  death  of  this  apostle.  The  sober  and  original  form  of  the 
former  of  these  two  traditions,  the  respectable  authority  on  which  it  rests,  the  impos- 
sibility of  its  having  been  deduced  from  an  exegetical  combination,  seeing  that  there 
is  no  logical  connection  between  the  criterion  indicated  (the  presence  of  a  genL-alogy) 
and  the  date  which  is  assigned  to  it,  seem  to  me  to  confer  a  much  higher  value  on 
this  ancient  testimony  than  modern  criticism  generally  accords  to  it. 

The  reasons  for  which  so  earlj^  a  date  of  composition  is  rejected  arc  purelj^  inter- 
nal. It  is  thought  that  the  Gospel  itself  yields  proofs  of  a  later  date  than  would  he 
indicated  by  this  tradition  of  Clement.  Baur,  who  has  fixed  it  the  latest,  places  the 
composition  after  a.d.  130  ;  Hilgenfeld,  from  100  to  110  ;  Zeller,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  second  century  or  earlier  ;  Volkmar,  about  100  ;  Keim,  about  90.  The 
other  critics,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Reuss,  who  come  nearer  in  general  to  the  tra- 
ditional opinion,  limit  themselves  to  saying,  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  ;  Holtzmann, 
between  70  and  80,  Tholuck,  Guericke,  Ebrard,  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.     In  the 

*  "  Die  Evangelien,  ihr  Geist,  ihre  'Verfasser  und  ihr  Verhaltniss  zu  einander," 
Isted.  1845;  2d,"  1853 


C0M.MEJ5TARY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  19 

conchuliiiii  dissertation  we  shall  weigh  the  exesetical  reasons  for  and  aj^fiinst  these 
dilTuu'nt  opiuions.  But  it  appears  to  us,  thnt  the  facts  tiientioncd  (Sec.  1)  already 
make  it  clear  that  every  opiniou  which  places  the  composition  in  the  second  century 
is  historically  uuteuahle.  The  use  which  the  continuator  of  ]\Iarlc  and  Clement  of 
Home  make  of  our  Gospel,  and  the  use  which  this  same  Clement  and  the  author  of 
the  "  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs"  make  of  the  Acts,  render  so  late  a  date 
of  composition  quite  impossible. 

II.  As  to  the  place,  we  have  only  two  hints,  and  we  can  form  no  critical  juJg- 
mcnt  of  their  Vidue.  .Jerome  (De  vir.  ill.  c.  7)  says  :  "  Luke,  a  physician,  who  com- 
posetl  his  book  in  the  countries  of  Achaia  and  Bo^otia."  On  theolher  hand,  in  the 
Pcschito,  the  title  of  our  Gospel  runs  tlius  :  "  Gospel  of  Luke  the  Evangelist,  which 
he  published  and  preached  in  Greek  {quod  protulit  et  evanffelimvit  c/mce)  in  Alexandria 
the  Great."  The  two  statements  are  not  neces.sarily  contradictory.  Lidce  may  have 
composed  his  work  in  Greece  and  have  published  it  in  Alexandria,  which  was  the 
great  centre  of  the  book-world  at  that  time. 

Criticism  cannot  certainly  feel  itself  bound  by  such  late  and  uncertain  informa- 
tion. Hiigenfeld,  who  on  this  point  differs  least  from  tradition,  places  the  composi- 
tion in  Achaia  or  Macedonia  ;  Kostlin  at  Ephesus  ;  the  majority  at  Rome  or  in  Italy. 
AVe  shall  discuss  the  question  in  concluding. 

III.  The  autiior  himself  announces  his  aim  in  his  preface.  He  wrote  with  the 
/esign  of  completing  the  Christian  instruction  of  a  man  in  high  station,  named  The- 

ophilus.  Tliis  name  could  not  denote  a  purely  ficlidous  person,  as  Origun  supposed, 
who  was  inclined  to  apply  it  to  every  Christian  endowed  wilh  spiritual  powers. 
Neither  could  the  .Jewish  high  priest  Theophilus,  of  whom  Josephus  speaks,  be 
/ntended  (Antiq.  xviii.  6.  3  ;  xix.  6.  2),  nor  the  Athenian  of  this  name  mentioned  by 
Tacilus  (Ann.  ii.  5o).  The  only  tradlional  information  we  possess  about  this  person 
is  that  found  in  the  "  Clementine  Recognitions"  (x.  71),  about  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  :  "  S")  that  Theophilus,  who  was  at  the  head  of  all  the  men  iu  power 
at  the  city  (of  Antioch),  consecrated,  under  the  name  of  a  church,  the  great  basilica 
(liie  p-ilace)  in  which  he  resided.  "  *  According  to  this,  Tlieo[)hilus  was  a  great  lord 
residing  in  tlie  capital  of  Syria.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  reasons  which  lead 
us  to  think  that  Luke  himself  was  originally  from  this  city.  Did  he  belong  to  the 
household  of  Tlieophilus  ?  Had  he  been  his  slave,  and  then  his  freedm.an  ?  Lobeck 
has  remarked  that  the  termination  o5  was  a  contiactiou  particularly  frequent  in  the 
names  of  slaves.f  Physicians  appear  to  liave  frequently  belonged  to  the  class  of 
slaves  or  freednien.|:  If  Luke,  freed  by  Theophilus,  practised  as  a  physician  at 
Antioch,  and  if  he  was  brought  to  the  faith  at  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  church 
in  thiit  city,  he  might  very  well  have  decided  to  accompany  the  apostle  in  his  missioii. 
In  this  case  he  would  have  rejoined  him  at  Troas,  just  as  he  was  about  to  pass  over 
into  Europe  ;  and  there  woidd  no  looger  be  anylhing  surprising  in  the  pronoun  we, 
by  which  he  a.ssigns  himself  a  jdace  in  the  missijuary  company.  On  this  supposi- 
tion, also,  we  can  understand  why  he  should  have  dedicated  his  work  to  his  old  fiieud 

*  "  Ita  ut  Theoplnlus.  qui  erat  cunctis  potenlihtis  in  civitate  sublimijr,  domus 
su;e  iiiirenfi'm  basilicam  ecciesife  nomine  consecraiet. " 

+  Wolf's  "Analecten,  iii.  49  ;"  comp.  Tholuck,  "  Glaubwiird. "  p.  148. 

X  Qumtilian,  "  luslit."  vii.  2  :  Merlicinam  factitnsse  manumissum.  Suet.  Calig. 
o.  8  :  Miltocum  eo  e\  servi'?  me  is  medifum.  Comp.  Cic.  pro  Clueulio,  c.  G;3  ;  Seneca, 
'■  De  Rtneficiis,"  iii.  24.     See  Hug,  "  Einl."  ii.  p.  l;W. 


20  COMMENTARY    OiT    ST.  LUKE. 

and  patron.  This  dedication  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the  book  was  intended 
for  Theophilus  alone.  Until  the  discovery  of  printinjc,  the  publication  of  a  woik  was 
a  very  costly  undertaking  ;  and  authors  were  accustomed  to  dedicate  their  works  to 
some  high  personage  of  their  acquaintance,  who  could  procure  the  writer  an  oppor- 
tunity of  reading  his  production  in  some  select  circle,  and  have  the  first  copies  pre- 
pared at  his  own  expense.  In  this  way  he  opened  to  tlie  author  the  road  to  publicity. 
Whoever  was  obliging  enough  to  undertake  this  responsibility  was  called  the  paironvs 
libri.  Such,  doubtless,  was  the  service  which  Theophilus  was  asked  to  render  to 
Luke's  worli.  In  reality,  Luke  addressed  himself,  through  the  medium  of  this 
person,  to  all  that  part  of  th;  church  to  which  Theophilus  belonged,  to  the  churches 
of  the  Greek  world,  and,  in  a  certain  sense,  to  the  entire  Church. 

The  object  he  had  in  view,  according  to  the  Fathers,  was  simply  to  make  known 
the  history  of  Jesus,  more  particularly  to  converts  from  the  heathen.  Modern  criti- 
cism lias  found  in  the  preface,  and  even  in  the  narrative,  indications  of  a  more 
special  design  connected  with  the  great  movement  of  ecclesiastical  polemics  which  it 
conceives  occupied  the  first  and  second  centuries.  According  to  Baur  ("  Marcus 
Evang. "  p.  223,  et  seq.),  the  original  Luke,  of  which  Marcion  has  preserved  a  faith- 
ful impression,  was  intended  to  oppose  the  .lewish  Christianity  of  the  Tvpelve,  as 
represented  by  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  its  original  form.  The  author  sought  to 
depreciate  the  apostles  in  order  to  e.xalt  Paul  ;  while  our  canonical  Luke,  which  is  a 
later  version  of  this  original  Luke,  was  directed  rather  against  the  unbelieving  and 
persecuting  Judiasm.  The  former  part  of  this  proposition  has  been  reproduced  and 
developed  in  still  stronger  terms  by  "  the  anonymous  Saxon,"  who  sees  nothing  in 
the  third  Gospel  but  a  bitter  pamphlet  of  the  Apostle  Paul  against  the  Twelve,  and 
more  especially  against  Peter.  M.  Burnouf  has  made  himself  the  advocate  of  this 
view  in  the  Bevue  des  Deux  Mondes*  But  even  in  the  Tubingen  school  a  xjrotest 
has  been  raised  against  what  have  been  called  the  "  exaggerations"  of  Baur.  Zeller 
finds  no  trace  either  in  the  Gospel  or  the  Acts  of  this  spirit  of  systematic  depreciation 
of  Peter  and  the  Twelve.  According  to  him,  the  author  simply  wishes  to  check 
excessive  admiration  for  Peter,  and  to  preserve  Paul's  place  by  the  side  of  this  apostle. 
With  this  aim,  iie  guards  himself  from  directly  opposing  the  Christianity  of  the 
Twelve  ;  he  simply  places  side  by  side  with  the  views  of  the  Jewish-Christian  apostles 
those  of  Paul,  whi(:h  he  endeavors,  as  far  as  possible,  to  exhibit  as  identical  with  the 
foimer.  That  in  this  attempt  at  recnnciliation  real  history  is  sacrificed,  appears  evi- 
dent to  this  critic.  He  accounts  in  this  way  for  the  fact  that  in  this  Gospel  Jesus 
gives  utterance  alternately  to  particularist  teaching  (in  the  sense  of  the  Twelve),  and 
to  universalist  passages  suited  to  the  thought  of  Paul. 

Yolkmar  combats  this  view.  Nowhere  in  our  Gospel,  not  even  in  the  facts  and 
discourses  of  the  first  two  chapters,  does  he  discover  those  paiticularist  or  Ebiouitisli 
elements,  by  means  of  which,  according  to  Zeller,  the  author  sought  to  win  the  confi- 
dence of  the  .Jewish-Christian  party.  lu  his  jud!i:ment,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  purely 
Pauline.  In  opposition  to  that  fiery  manifesto  of  apostolic  .lewish-Chrislianity,  the 
Apocalypse, f  composed  in  a.d.  68,  Mark,  five  years  afterward,  published  his  Gospel, 
the  earliest  in  point  of  time,  and  written  iu  the  sense  of  a  m  )derate  Panlinism  ;  later 
still,  Luke  re-wrote  this  book,  laying  still  greater  emphasis  on  the  principles  of  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  In  all  these  suppositions  the  idea  is,  that  Jesus  speaks  in  the 
Gospel,  not  as  He  really  spoke,  but  as  it  suits  the  evangelist  to  make  Him  speak. 

*  December,  1865.  f  See  p.  25.— J.  H. 


COMMENTAIIY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  21 

All  these  opiniuns  ns  lo  the  jiim  of  Luke's  work  are  connected  with  tlie  grout 
question,  siiggtsted  by  Buur,  of  a  fiuuliiinuiitiil  ditTeience  of  view  between  Paul  and 
the  Twelve,  wiiich  is  represented  as  llie  real  starling  point  of  the  development  of  the 
Church  and  ot  the  entire  Christian  literature.  This  question,  with  which  tliat  of  tlie 
origin  of  the  Gospels  is  now  inseparably  connected,  will  be  discussed  iu  our  conclud- 
ing paragraphs. 

SEC.    IV. — SOURCES  OF   THE   TIIIUD   GOSPEIj. 

There  is  no  room  for  an  inquiry  into  the  sources  whence  the  author  of  a  Gospel 
derived  his  knowledge  of  the  facts  whicii  he  transmits  to  us,  except  ou  two  condi- 
lions  :  1.  That  the  evangelist  is  not  regarded  as  an  eye-witness  of  the  facts  related. 
Now  this  is  a  character  which  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  expressly  disclaims 
(1  :  2).  2.  That  we  are  not  governed  by  that  false  notion  of  inspiration,  according  to 
which  the  sacred  history  was  revealed  and  dictated  to  the  evaugtlists  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  As  far  as  our  third  Gospel  is  concerned,  this  idea  is  altogether  excludeil  by 
what  the  author  says  himself  of  the  information  he  had  lo  obtain  to  qualify  hmiself 
to  write  his  book  (1  :  3).* 

It  is  at  once,  then,  the  right  and  the  duty  of  criticism  to  inquire  from  what  sources 
the  author  derived  the  incidents  which  he  records.  This  question,  however,  is  im- 
mediately conrplicated  with  another  and  more  general  question,  as  to  the  relation 
between  our  three  synoptics.  For  many  regard  it  as  probable,  and  even  certain,  that 
some  one  of  our  Gospels  served  as  a  source  of  information  to  the  writer  who  com- 
posed another  of  them.  It  is  not  our  intention  to  relate  here  the  history  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  great  theological  and  literary  problem. f  We  do  not  even  intend  in 
this  place  to  .set  forth  the  numerous  and  apparently  contradictory  facts  which  bring 
it  up  afresh  after  every  attempted  solution.  In  view  of  the  exegetical  work  we  have 
in  hand,  we  shall  here  bring  forward  only  two  matters  : 

I.  The  elomnts  of  which  crilicisui  has  availed  itself  in  order  to  solve  the  problem. 

II.  The  principal  systems  which  it  constructs  at  the  present  day  by  means  of  these 
elements. 

I. 

The  factors  which  criticism  has  hitherto  employed  for  the  solution  of  the  problem 
are  four  in  number  : 

1.  Oral  tradition  (Trapddonii),  or  the  reproduction  of  the  apostolic  testimony,  as 
they  gave  it  when  they  founded  the  churches.  This  factor  must  have  borne  a  very 
essential  part  in  determining  the  form  of  the  evangelical  historical  writings  from  their 
very  commencement.  Luke  indicates  its  im[)ortance,  1  :  3.  According  to  this 
expression,  "  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,"  this  tradition  was  the  original 
source  of  the  oral  or  written  narratives  which  were  circulated  in  the  churches.  It 
branched  out  into  a  thousand  channels  through  the  ministry  of  the  evangelists  (Eph. 
4  :  11  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  5).  Gieseler,  with  his  exquisite  historical  tact,  was  the  first  to 
bring  out  all  the  value  of  this  fact  as  serving  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  J 

*  The  advocates  of  the  theory  of  plenarj'  inspiration  would  not  regard  this  para- 
graph as  a  correct  representation  of  tlieir  views.  Tiiey  would  not  regard  the  use  of 
foregoing  documents  as  iucompatible  with  their  -views.— J.  H. 

f  We  refer  our  readers  to  the  generally  accurate  account  of  M.  Nicolas,  "  Etudes 
Critiques  sur  le  N.  T."  pp.  40-85. 

t  "  Uistorisfh  kritisfher  Versuch  liber  die  Entstehung  und  die  frlihesten  Schick' 
sale  der  Schriftlichea  Evangelien,"  Leipzig,  1818. 


22  COMMENTARY    OJiT    ST.   LUKE. 

2.  Separate  writings  or  memoirs  {cnro/ivn/xovEvfiaTu)  on  some  feature  or  particular 
part  of  the  Saviour's  life,  ou  a  discourse  or  a  miracle  which  an  evangelist  related, 
and  which  he  or  one  of  his  hearers  put  in  wriiing  that  it  might  not  l)e  forgotten  ; 
or,  again,  some  private  account  preserved  among  their  family  papers  by  the  persuns 
more  immediately  interested  in  the  evangelical  diaraa  :  we  may  regard  our  Guspel  as 
a  collectiou  of  a  number  of  such  detached  writings,  pieced  together  by  the  hand  of 
an  editor.  Carrying  out  this  view,  Schleiermacher  made  a  very  ingenious  analysis 
of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  a  little  work  *  which  was  to  be  completed  by  a  similar  study 
of  the  Acts,  but  the  second  part  never  appeared.  Thus  this  scholar  thought  he  could 
discriminate,  in  the  portion  D  :  51  ;  19  :  48,  traces  of  two  distinct  writings,  the  first  of 
which  would  be  the  journal  of  a  companion  of  Jesus  in  His  journey  to  the  feast  of 
dedication,  the  second  the  journal  of  another  companion  of  Jesus  when  He  went  up 
to  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  The  truth  of  this  second  means  of  explanation  might 
be  supported  by  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  avard^aaOai,  to  arranrje  in  order, 
1  :  1,  if  only  it  were  proved  that  the  arrangement  implied  by  this  word  refers  to  the 
documents,  and  not  to  the  facts  themselves. 

Under  this  category  of  detached  writings  would  have  to  be  ranged  also  the  various 
documents  which  several  critics  believe  they  have  detected  in  Luke's  work,  on 
account  of  a  kind  of  literary  or  dogmatic  patchwork  which  they  find  in  it.  Thus 
Kuiucil,  following  Marsh,  regarded  the  portion  9  :  51  ;  18  :  14  as  a  more  ancient 
willing,  containing  a  collection  of  the  precepts  of  Jesus,  to  which  he  gave  the  name 
of  guomonology.  Hiigenfeld  f  also  distmguishes  from  the  narrative  as  a  whole^ 
whicii  has  the  uuiversalist  character  of  the  Christianity  of  St.  Paul,  certain  passngea 
of  Jewish-Christian  tendency,  which  he  regards  as  some  very  eaily  materials,  pro- 
ceeding from  the  apostolic  Church  itself.  The  entire  portion  9  :  51  ;  19  :  28  rests, 
according  to  him,  on  a  more  anctient  writing  which  the  author  introduced  into  his 
work,  working  it  up  afresh  both  in  substance  and  form.  Kcistlin  X  thinks  it  may  be 
proved  that  there  were  some  sources  of  Judean  origin,  and  others  of  Samaiitan 
origin,  which  furnished  Luke  with  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  whicli  the  two  coun- 
tries of  Judea  and  Samaria  are  the  scene  in  our  Gospel.  Keim,  while  declaring  him- 
self for  this  view,  admits  besides  other  sources  of  Pauline  origin  ,  for  example,  the 
document  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper.^  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the 
genealogical  document  3  :  23,  ei  seq.  existed  before  our  Gospel,  and,  such  as  it  is,  was 
inserted  in  it  by  the  author  (see  ou  3  :  23). 

3.  We  must  allow,  furliier,  the  existence  of  longer  and  fuller  documents  which 
Luke  might  have  used.  Does  he  not  speak  himself,  in  his  preface,  of  writings  that 
were  already  numerous  at  the  time  he  was  wriling  {ttoIao'.),  which  in  respect  of  con- 
tents must  have  been  of  very  much  the  same  nature  as  his  own,  that  is  to  say,  veri- 
table Gospels?  He  designates  tliem  by  the  name  of  Jt^yr/ffts,  a  word  which  has  been 
wrcuigly  applied  to  detached  writings  of  the  kind  that  Schleiermacher  admitted,  and 
which  can  only  apply  to  a  consecutive  and  more  or  less  complete  narrative.  It  such 
Works  existed  in  gieat  numl)er,  and  were  known  to  Luke,  it  is  diflicult  lo  thinic  that 
he  has  not  endeavored  to  profit  by  them.     The  only  question  then  is,  whether,  on  the 

*  "  Ueber  die  Schriften  des  Lucas,  ein  Kritischer  Versuch,"  von  Schleiermacher, 
Berlin,  1817. 

f  "  Die  Evangelien,"  1852. 

i  "  Der  Ursprung  und  die  Compos,  der  sj-n.  Evang. "  1853. 

§  "  Geschichte  Jesu,"  t.  i.,  Zurich,  18(57. 


COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE.  23 

supposition  that  they  no  longer  exist,  we  can  form  any  idea  of  them  by  means  of  our 
Gospel,  for  the  composition  of  which  they  supplied  some  materials.  Keim  thinks  he 
recognizes,  as  a  general  basis  of  Luke's  work,  a  Jewish-Christian  Gospel,  which  must 
have  been  nearly  related  to  our  Matthew,  very  proi)ably  its  direct  descendant,  but 
distiugulshed  from  it  by  an  unhealthy  tendency  to  Ebionitism  and  Dualism.  Tlic 
spirit  of  Ibis  fundamental  document  would  betray  itself  all  through  Luke's  work. 
Ewnld  imagines  a  whole  series  of  writings  of  which  Luke  nmst  have  availed  himself 
— a  Hebrew  Gospel  by  Philip  thedeacon,  acollection  of  the  discourses  of  Je.sus  by  llie 
Apostle  ^lalthew,  of  which  Papias  speaks,  etc.  (see  further  on).  Bleek,*  reviving 
in  a  new  form  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  Gospel  (a  manual  composed,  accorduig 
to  Eichhorn,  for  the  use  of  evangelists,  under  apostolic  sanction),  admits,  as  a  l)asis 
of  our  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  a  Greek  Gospel, written  in  Galilee  by  a  believer, 
who  at  certain  times  had  himself  accompanied  Jesus.  This  earliest  account  of  the 
Saviour's  life  would  mould  all  the  subsequent  evangelical  narrations.  The  writings 
of  the  TTo/Aoi,  many  (1  :  1),  would  be  only  variations  of  it,  and  our  three  synoptics 
merely  different  versions  of  the  same.  Lastly,  we  know  that  many  critics  at  the 
present  day  find  the  principal  source  of  Luke  and  the  two  other  s^'uoptics  (at  least  of 
the  narrative  part)  in  a  supposed  Gospel  of  Mark,  older  than  our  canonical  Maik,  and 
to  whi(.-h  they  give  the  name  of  Proto-Maik  (lieuss,  Reville,  Holtzmann,  etc.).f  All 
these  writings,  anterior  to  that  of  Luke,  and  only  known  to  us  by  the  traces  of  them 
discoviired  in  his  woik,  are  lost  at  the  present  day. 

4.  Would  it  be  impossible  for  some  writing  which  we  still  possess  to  be  one  of 
the  sources  of  Luke — for  e.vample,  one  of  our  two  synoptics,  or  even  both  of  them  ? 
This  fourth  means  of  explanation  has  at  all  times  been  employed  by  criticism.  At  the 
present  day  it  is  still  used  with  great  confidence  by  many.  According  to  Baur,| 
Matthew  was  the  direct  and  sole  source  of  Luke  ;  Mark  proceeded  from  both.  Hil- 
genfeld  also  puts  Matthewfirst  :  but  he  interposes  Mark  between  Matthew  and  Luke. 
According  to  Volkraar,§  Mark  is  the  primary  source  ;  from  him  proceeded  Luke,  and 
Matthew  frum  both. 

To  sum  up  :  Oral  tradition,  detached  writings.  Gospels  more  or  less  complete 
now  lost  ;  last  of  all,  one  or  other  of  our  existing  Gospels — such  are  the  materials  b)' 
means  of  which  criticism  has  made  various  attempts  to  solve  the  problem  of  the 
origin,  both  of  Luke  in  particular  and  of  the  synoptics  in  general.  Let  us  endeavor 
now  to  describe  the  systema  which  actual  criticism  labors  to  construct  out  of  these 
various  kinds  of  materials. 

n. 

1.  We  will  commence  with  the  self-styled  critical  school  of  Baur.  The  common 
tendency  of  writers  of  this  school  is  to  represent  the  synoptics  as  deriving  their  con- 
tents from  each  other.     In  their  view,  the  contents  of  our  Gospels  cannot  be  histoii- 

*  "  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,"  18G2  ;  "  Synoptische  Erklarung  der  drei  erstea 
Evangelien,"  18(59. 

t  Reuss,  "  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  N.  T."  3d  ed.  1860;  R6ville, 
"  Etudes  critiques  sur  I'^Tang.  selon  St.  Matthieu,"  18G3  ;  Holtzmann,  "  Die  synopL. 
Ev."  1803. 

I  Raur,  "  Das  Marcus-Evangelium."  1851. 

i^  Volkmar.  "  Die  Evaugelicu,"  1870. 


24  COMMENTARY    ON    ST,   LUKE. 

cal,  because  they  contain  the  inadmissible  element  of  miracles.*  Consequently  tliey 
regard  our  Gospels,  not  as  real  liistuiicul  narrations,  but  as  compositions  of  a  poetical 
or  didactic  character.  The  diffeieuccs  between  thciu  are  not  in  any  way  natural 
divergences  proceeding  from  such  undesigned  modifications  as  tradition  undergoes 
in  course  of  oral  transmission,  or  from  tlie  diversity  of  writlen  sources,  but  result 
from  different  dogmatic  tendencies  in  tlie  w^iiters  of  the  Gospels  which  they  perfectly 
reflect.  Each  evangelist  has  reproduced  his  matter  with  a  free  hand,  modifying  it  in 
accordance  with  his  personal  views.  In  reality,  then,  our  Gospels  are  the  lettectiou, 
not  of  the  object  they  describe,  but  of  the  controversial  or  conciliatory  tendencies  of 
their  authors.  These  books  make  us  acquainted,  not  with  the  history  of  Jesus,  but 
with  that  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  different  theories  respecting  the  Founder  of  the 
gospel,  which  have  been  successivel}'^  held  in  it.  This  common  result  of  the  school 
appears  in  its  most  pronounced  form  in  Baur  and  Volkmar,  in  a  milder  form  in  Kost- 
lin  and  Hilgenfeld. 

Baur  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  makes,  as  Griesbach  and  De  Wette  did  before 
him,  Luke  proceed  from  Matthew,  and  Mark  from  Luke  and  Matthew  united.  This 
relationship  is  made  out  in  this  way.  Tliere  was,  first  of  all,  a  strictly  legal  and  par- 
ticularist  Matthew,  reflecting  the  primitive  Christianity  of  the  Twelve,  and  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem.  From  this  original  Matthew  afterward  proceeded  our  canonical 
Matthew,  the  narrative  being  recast  in  a  imiversalist  sense  (between  130  and  134) 
Li  opposition  to  the  original  Matthew  there  appeared  first  a  Luke,  which  was  alto- 
gether Pauline,  or  anti-legal  ;  this  was  the  writing  Marcicm  adopted,  and  from  which 
proceeded  later  on  our  canonical  Luke.  The  latter  was  the  result  of  a  revision 
designed  to  harmonize  it  with  the  Jewish-Christian  views  (about  140).  Reconciliation 
having  thus  been  reached  from  both  sides,  Mark  followed,  in  which  the  original  con- 
trast is  entiiely  neutralized.  For  its  matter,  the  latter  is  naturally  dependent  on  the 
other  two. 

The  "anonymous  Saxon"  f  starts  with  the  same  general  notion  ;  but  he  seasons  it 
in  a  piquant  fashion.  According  to  him,  our  synoptics,  with  the  exception  of  Luke, 
were  indeed  composed  by  the  authors  to  whom  the  Church  attributes  them  ;  l)ut  they 
intentionally  misrepresented  the  facts.  As  to  the  third,  Paul,  who  was  its  author, 
composed  it  with  a  view  to  decry  the  Twelve  and  their  party. 

Hilgenfeld  denies  the  opposition,  admitted  by  Baur,  between  the  original  Matthew 
and  a  Luke  which  preceded  ours.  He  believes  that,  in  the  very  bosom  of  apostolic 
and  Jewish-Christian  Christianity,  there  was  an  internal  development  at  work  from 
the  first  century  in  a  Pauline  direction,  the  result  partly  of  the  force  of  events,  but 
more  especially  of  the  influence  of  the  fall  of  .Terusalem  and  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles.  He  finds  a  proof  of  this  gradual  transformation  in  the  numerous  universal- 
ist  passages  of  our  canonical  Matthew,  which  witness  to  the  changes  undergone  by 
the  original  Matthew.  This  last  writing,  the  oldest  of  the  Gospels,  dated  from  70-80. 
The  Gospel  of  Mark,  which  followed  it,  went  a  step  further  in  the  Pauline  direc- 
tion. It  was  an  imitation  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  but  at  the  same  time  modified 
by  the  oral  tradition  existing  in  tiie  Church  at  Rome,  which  was  derived  from  Peter  ; 

*  Hilgenfeld  ("  Die  Evangelien,"  p.  530  :  '•  The  principal  argument  for  the  later 
origin  of  our  Gospels  is  always  this  fact,  that  they  relate  very  many  things  about  the 
life  of  Jesus,  which  certainly  could  not  have  taken  place  as  they  narrate  them." 

f  "  Sendschreiben  an  Baur  iiber  die  Abfassuugszeit  des  Lukas  uud  der  Synopti- 
ker,"  1848,  p.  20,  et  seq. 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.    LUKE.  25 

it  dates  from  the  period  from  80-100.  ITilgenfcld,  theroforo,  does  not  recognize 
Lulve'.s  inlhu-nce  ;iny\vi)cro  in  j\Iiiilc.  ■while  liaiir  discovers  it  every wliere.  Luke  pio- 
ceeds,  nccording  t(»  him,  from  tlie  two  foimer  ;  he  takes  a  fresli  step  in  tlie  universai- 
ist  and  Paidini;  direction.  It  was  wiiltcn  before  Marcion's  time,  from  100  to  110. 
Tims,  jis  lliis  theologian  himself  remaiks,  "  tiie  formulitm  of  our  canonical  Gos[)cls 
was  (romplcteiy  liuished  before  the  time  when  Baur  makes  it  begin"  ("  Kauou, "  p. 
172).  With  this  difference  as  to  dates  between  the  master  and  his  disciple,  there  is 
connected  a  more  profound  difference  still.  Instead  of  a  sharp  dogmatical  coiitiast 
which  was  gradually  neutralized,  Ililgenfeld  admits  a  progressive  development  in  the 
very  bosom  of  primitive  Jewish  Chiislianity. 

Willi  Baur,  Mark  came  third  ;  willi  Ililgenfeld,  second  ;  there  was  only  wanted 
further  a  theologian  of  the  same  school  who  should  assign  him  the  fir.«t  place  ;  and 
this  is  dune  at  the  prcstnt  time  by  Volkmar,  who  follows  the  example  of  Str)rr  in  the 
last  centnr}'.  According  to  him,  that  fiery  manifesto  uf  primitive  Jewish  Chris-tian- 
it}',  the  Apocal^'pse,  had  about  68  declared  implacable  hostility  against  St.  Paul, 
representing  him  ^chap.  xiii.)  as  the  false  prophet  of  the  last  times,  and  making  the 
churches  founded  by  him,  in  comparison  with  the  Jewish-Christian  churches,  a  mere 
pkbs  (chap.  vii.).  A  moderate  Paulinian  took  up  the  gauntlet  and  wrote  (about  73), 
as  a  reply  our  second  Gospel,  the  oldest  of  all  the  writings  of  this  kind.  It  was  a 
didactic  poem,  on  a  historical  basis,*  designed  to  defend  Paul  and  the  right  of  Ihe 
Gentile  churches.  Beyond  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  author 
had  no  other  sources  than  oral  tradition,  his  Christian  experience,  the  Apocahpse 
which  he  opposed,  and  his  creative  genius.  Somewhat  later  (about  the  3'ear  100),  a 
Pauline  believer  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who  had  travelled  in  Palestine,  worked  up 
this  book  into  a  new  form  by  the  aid  of  some  traditions  which  he  had  collected,  and 
by  inserting  in  it  first  a  genealogical  document  (Genealogus  Hebrseoium),  and  then  a 
writing  of  Essenist  tendency  (Evangelium  pauperum).  His  aim  was  to  win  over  to 
Paulmism  the  Jewish-Christian  part  of  the  Church,  which  was  still  in  a  majoiity. 
This  was  our  Luke.  Matthew  is  the  result  of  a  fusion  of  the  two  preceding  writmgs. 
It  is  the  manifesto  of  a  moderate  Jewish-Christian  feeling,  which  desired  to  gather 
all  tile  heathrn  into  the  Clmrch,  but  could  not  see  its  way  to  this  at  the  cost  of  the 
abolition  of  the  law,  as  Paul  taught  ;  its  composition  dates  from  110.  All  the  other 
writings,  the  existence  of  which  has  been  supposed  by  modern  criticism,  such  as  a 
Proto-^Iatthew,  the  Logia,  and  a  Proto-Mark,  in  Volkmar's  judgment,  are  nothing 
but  empty  critical  fancies. 

The  third,  second,  and  first  place  in  succession  having  been  assigned  to  !Mark,  no 
new  supposition  seemed  possible,  at  least  from  the  same  school.  Nevertheless  Kcistlia 
has  rendered  possible  the  impossible,  by  assigning  to  Mark  all  three  positions  at  once. 
This  complicated  construction  is  difficult  to  follow  :  The  oldest  evangelical  record 
would  be  that  Proto-^Mark  to  which  Papias  must  have  referred  ;  it  represented  the 
moderate  universalism  of  Peter.  From  this  work,  combined  with  oral  tradition  and 
the  Logia  of  the  Apostle  ^Matthew,  would  ])roceed  our  canonical  Matthew,  These 
dilTirent  works  are  supposed  to  have  given  birth  lo  a  Gospel  of  Peter,  which  closely 
resembled  the  oiiginal  Maik,  but  was  still  more  like  our  actual  ^lark.  After  that 
must  have  appeared  Luke,  to  which  all  llie  preceding  sources  contributed  ;  and  last 

*  "  Die  Evangelien,"  p.  4G1  :  "  Eine  selbslbewussle  Lehrpocsie  auf  historischen 
Grunde. " 


26  COMMEXTAIIY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

of  all  our  actual  Mark,  ■which  -u-ould  be  the  result  of  a  revision  of  the  original  Mark 
by  the  help  of  the  canonical  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  principal  wayrnarks  of  the  route 
thus  travel  sed  are  these  :  Mark  (I.)  ;  Matthew  ;  Mark  (II.,  or  the  Gospel  of  Peter)  ; 
Luke  ;  Mark  (III.).  We  can  only  say  thai  this  hypothesis  is  the  death-blow  of  the 
theory  of  the  Tubingen  school,  as  formerly  Marsh's  sj'stem  was  of  the  hypothesis  of 
an  original  Gospel.  The  complicated  and  artificial  form  this  hypothesis  is  compelled 
to  assume,  by  the  difficuKies  which  weigh  upon  its  simpler  forms,  is  its  condemna- 
tion. Thus,  as  Ililgenfeld  regretfully  observes,  "  after  such  multiplied  and  arduous 
labors  we  are  still  very  far  from  reaching  the  least  agreement  even  on  the  most 
essential  points."  Let  it  be  observed  that  this  disagreement  is  evinced  by  disciples 
of  one  and  the  same  school,  which  advanced  into  the  critical  arena  with  colors 
flying,  and  thundering  forth  the  psean  of  victory.  Is  not  such  a  state  of  things  a 
serious  fact,  especially  for  a  school  the  fundamental  idea  of  which  is,  that  there  is  an 
intimate  connection  between  the  successive  appearances  of  our  Gospels  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  primitive  Church,  of  which  last  this  school  claims  to  give  the  world  a  new 
conception  ?  Dues  not  such  a  complete  diversity  in  fixing  the  order  in  which  the 
Gospels  appeared,  exhibit  a  no  less  fundamental  disagreement  in  conceiving  of  the 
development  of  the  Cliurch  ?  These  are  evident  symptoms  not  only  of  the  breaking 
up  of  this  school,  but,  above  all,  of  the  radical  error  of  the  original  notion  on  which 
it  was  founded.  The  opposition  in  principle  between  Paulinism  and  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity, which  is  an  axiom  with  this  school,  is  also  its  izpCJTov  ipeuSoi. 

2.  We  will  now  enumerate  the  critical  sj'^steras  which  have  kept  independent  of 
the  Tubingen  school. 

If  Bleek,  who  is  at  once  the  most  discerning  and  judicious  critic  of  our  day,  is 
in  several  respects  the  antipodes  of  Baur,  he  agrees  wi'h  him  on  one  point :  the  entire 
dependence  he  altril)utes  to  Mark  in  relation  to  the  two  other  synoptics.  As  has  been 
already  mentioned,  he  makes  Matthew  and  Luke  proceed  from  a  Gospel  written  in 
Greek  by  a  Galilean  beiiever,  who  was  present  at  several  seentsin  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
in  this  province.  This  is  the  reason  why  this  book  has  given  such  great  preponder- 
ance to  the  Galilean  work.  The  numerous  works  of  which  Lukespeaks  (1  : 1)  were  all 
diii'erent  versions  of  this,  as  well  as  our  canonical  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  impor- 
tant book,  with  all  its  offshoots,  which  preceded  our  sj'noptics,  is  lost  ;  these  last,  the 
most  complete  and  best  accredited,  have  alone  survived.  This  conception  is  simple 
and  clear.     Whether  it  renders  a  sufficient  account  of  the  facts,  remains  to  be  seen. 

Ritschl,  in  a  remarkable  article,  has  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  absolute  prioiity 
of  our  canonical  Mark  (to  the  exclusion  of  any  Proto-Mark).  Matthew  proceeded, 
according  to  him,  from  Mark,  and  Luke  from  both.*  Ritschl  endeavors  to  prove  these 
statements  by  a  very  sagacious  analysis  of  the  relations  between  the  narratives  of 
Matthew  and  ^lark  on  certain  points  of  detail.  But  the  impression  we  have  received 
from  this  labor  is,  that  both  the  method  followed,  and  the  results  obtained,  are  more 
ingenious  than  solid. 

Reuss,  Reville,  Hcltzmann,  agree  in  making  two  writings,  now  lost,  ihe  original 
sources  of  our  three  synoptical  Gospels  These  were:  1.  The  Proto-Mark,  which 
furnished  our  three  evangelists  with  their  general  outline,  and  with  the  narratives 
common  to  them  all  ;  3.  The  "  Logia, "  or  collection  of  discourses  compiled  by  Mat- 

"^  "  Ueber  den  gegenwartigen  Stand  der  Kritik  der  syn.  Ev.,"  in  the  "  Theol. 
Jahrb."  1851. 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  27 

thew,  wliich  was  Ihe  source  for  those  instructions  of  Jesus  related  in  common  by 
Mallhew  and  Luke.  Our  canunical  ^lark  is  a  reproduction  (enlarged  according  to 
Hl'Uss,  abridged  according  to  ILjilzniann)  of  tlie  former  of  tliese  two  wiilings.  lis 
autlior  made  no  use  of  tlie  "  Logla. "  Mattliew  and  Luke  botli  proceeded  from  a 
fuyiou  of  these  two  fundamental  writings.  Tiieir  authors  inserted  or  distributed,  in 
the  outline  .«ketch  of  tlie  Proto-^Liik,  the  sayings  and  discourses  collected  in  the 
"  Logia."  But  hereaiises  a  difliculty.  If  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  as  JIatthevv  and 
Luke  convey  them  to  us,  are  drawn  from  the  same  source,  how  does  il;  happen  that 
Mattliew  transmits  them  in  the  form  of  large  masses  of  discourse  (for  example,  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  chap.  5:7;  the  collection  of  parables,  chap.  13.  etc.), 
while  in  Luke  these  very  sayings  are  more  frequently  presented  to  us  in  the  form  of 
detached  instructions,  occasioned  by  some  accidental  circumstance?  Of  these  two 
different  forms,  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  most  faithful  to  the  original  document  ? 
Matthew,  who  groups  into  large  masses  the  materials  that  lie  side  by  side  in  the 
"  Logia"  ?  or  Luke,  who  breaks  up  the  long  discourses  of  the  "  Logia,"  and  divides 
them  into  a  number  of  particular  sayings?  lioltzmann  decides  in  favor  of  the  lirst 
alternative.  According  to  this  writer,  we  ought  to  allow  that  the  form  of  the 
"  Logia"  was  very  neaily  that  presented  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  uarralivu  of 
travel,  I-uke  9  :  51,  19  :  28.  Weizsacker,  on  the  contrary,  defends  the  second  view, 
aod  thinks  that  the  long  discourses  of  Matthew  are  more  or  less  faithful  reproduc- 
tions of  the  form  of  the  "Logia."  This  also  is  the  opinion  of  M.  Reville.  "We 
shall  have  to  see  whether  this  hypothesis,  under  either  of  its  two  forms,  bears  the  test 
of  facts. 

Ewald  sets  out  in  the  same  way  with  the  two  hypotheses  of  the  Proto-iVIark  and 
the  "  Logia"  ;  but  he  constructs  upjn  this  foundation  an  exceedingly  complicated 
system,  according  to  which  our  Luke  would  be  nothing  less  than  the  combined  result 
of  eight  anterior  writings  :  1.  A  Gospel  written  by  Philip  the  Evangelist,  which 
described  in  the  Aramaean  language  the  salient  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  with  short 
historical  explanations.  2.  Matthew's  "  Logia,"  or  discourses  of  Jesus,  furnished 
with  short  historical  introductions.  3.  The  Proto-Mark,  composed  by  the  aid  of  the 
two  preceding  writings,  remarkable  for  the  freshness  and  vivacity  of  its  coloring,  and 
dilTeriug  very  little  from  our  canonical  Mark.  4.  A  Gospel  treating  of  certain  critical 
points  in  our  Lord's  life  (the  temptation,  for  example).  Ewald  calls  this  writing  tlie 
"  Bciok  of  the  Higher  History."  5.  Our  canonical  ]\Iatthew,  combining  the 
"  Logia"  of  this  apostle  with  all  the  other  writings  already  named.  6,  7,  and  8. 
Tiiree  writings  now  last,  v,'hich  Ewald  describes  as  though  he  had  them  in  his 
hands  :  one  of  a  familiar,  tender  character  ;  another  somewhat  brusque  and  abrui)t  ; 
the  third  comprising  the  narratives  of  the  infanc}'  (Luke  1  and  2).  Lastly,  9.  Our 
canonical  Luke,  composed  by  the  aid  of  all  the  preceding  (with  the  exception  of  our 
!Matlhew),  and  which  simply  combines  the  materials  furnished  by  the  others.  Yt'e 
may  add,  10.  Our  canonical  Mark,  which  with  very  slight  modification  is  the  repro- 
duction (if  Xo.  3.  This  constiucti^n  certainly  does  not  recDinmend  itself  b}''  its 
intrinsic  evidence  and  simplicity.  It  may  prove  as  fatal  to  the  hypathesis  of  a 
Protu-Mark  as  was  formerly  tliat  of  ^larsh  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  primiiive  Gospel, 
or  as  that  of  Kostlin  at  the  present  day  to  the  Tiiiiingen  idea. 

Lastly,  we  see  a  new  mode  of  explanation  appealing,  which  seems  destined  to 
replace  for  a  time  the  tlieor}',  so  stoutly  maintaine.l  by  and  since  Willie,  of  tlie  prior- 
ity of  Mark  or  of  the  Proto-Mark,  whenever  it  has  any  considerable  connection  wilk 


2S  C•OMME^•TAl:Y    O^'    81.   LL'KE. 

this  last.  This  opinion  h!is*been  developed  by  Weiss  in  three  very  elaborate  iirticles,* 
in  which  he  seeivs  to  prove  :  1.  That  the  most  ancient  work  was  au  apostolical  Mat- 
thew, comprising  the  discourses,  some  longer  and  others  shorter,  with  a  large  niniiber 
of  facts,  but  without  any  intention  on  the  part  of  the  author  to  write  the  entire  history 
of  Jesus.  2.  Thereupon  appeared  Mark,  written  by  the  aid  of  recollections  which 
the  author  had  preserved  of  the  recitals  of  Peter.  This  was  the  first  attempt  to  trace 
the  entire  course  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  He  included  in  this  sketch  all  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  contained  in  the  [jreoeding  work  which  could  be  adapted  to  his  narrative. 
3.  Tiie  auliior  of  our  canonical  Matthew  made  use  of  this  work  of  Mark,  rewrote  it, 
and  supplemented  it  by  the  aid  of  the  apostolical  IMatthew.  4.  Luke  also  rewrote 
the  tWD  more  ancient  works,  the  apostolic  Matthew  and  ]\[ark,  but  in  a  very  free 
manner,  and  enriched  his  narrative  with  new  materials  derived  from  oral  or  written 
tradition. 

This  combination  appears  to  me  to  come  very  near  the  explanation,  vphich  is  the 
basis  of  a  recent  work  of  Klostermann.f  By  a  consecutive,  detailed,  delicate  analysis 
of  the  Gospel  of  Maik,  this  scholar  proves  that  the  author  of  this  work  composed  it 
on  the  basis  of  Matthew,  enamelling  the  story  with  explanatory  notes,  tiie  suljslance 
of  Avhich  evidently  emanated  from  an  eye-witness  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  whicli 
could  have  been  none  other  than  Peter  ;  in  general,  the  additions  refer  to  the  relations 
of  Jesus  with  His  apostk'S.  With  Klostermann,  as  with  Weiss,  Matthew  would  be 
the  fiibt  and  pnncipal  written  source  ;  but  with  this  difference  (if  we  rightly  under- 
stand), that  with  the  former  this  IMatthew  is  our  canonical  Matthew,  while  in  the 
opinion  of  Weiss,  this  last  writing  differed  sensibly  from  the  prmitive  Matthew,  which 
only  appears  in  our  canonical  Matthew  as  transformed  b}'  means  of  Mark.  The 
di^pendence  of  Mark  on  Matthew  has  then  much  more  stress  laid  upon  by  it  Kloster- 
mann than  by  Weiss.  Klostermann  announces  a  second  work,  in  which  he  will 
prove  a  precisely  similar  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark.  Thus  it  is  clear,  that  in 
proportion  as  ciilicism  dispenses  with  the  Hypothesis  of  a  Proto-Maik,  it  is  compelled 
to  attribute  to  tiie  piimitive  Matthew,  which  at  the  outset  was  to  be  only  a  collection 
of  discourses,  more  and  more  of  the  historical  element  ;  so  that  in  Weiss  it  again 
becomes  a  more  or  less  complete  Gospel,  and  lastly  in  Klostermann  approximates 
closely  to  our  canonical  Matthew  itself. 

This  question  of  the  oiigiu  of  the  synoptics,  and  of  their  mutual  relations,  must 
not  be  regarded  as  unimportant  in  regard  to  the  substance  of  the  evangelical  beliefs. 
Just  as  the  view  defended  by  the  Tiibingen  school,  according  to  which  our  synoptics 
are  simply  derived  from  one  another,  exiiibits  the  contents  of  these  writings,  and  the 
degree  of  confidence  they  inspired  at  the  time  they  appeared,  in  an  unfavorable  light 
(since  the  differences  which  exist  between  them  could,  in  such  a  case  only  pn  reed 
from  the  caprice  of  the  copyists,  and  the  slight  faith  they  placed  in  the  stoiy  of  their 
predecessors);  so  does  the  other  opinion,  which  looks  for  different  sources,  oial  or 
written,  whence  each  writing  proceeds,  and  wliich  are  adequate  to  account  foi  their 
mutual  resemblances  or  differences,  tend  to  re-establish  their  general  credibiliy,  and 
their  genuineness  as  historical  works. 

*  In  the  "  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1861  ;  "  .Jahrbiicher  fur  Deutsche  Theologi^," 
1804  ;  Iliiri.  1805.  Since  then,  Weiss  has  attempted  to  prove  his  tneoiy  by  a  detailed 
exegesis  of  Mark. 

f"  Das  Marcus-Evangelium, "  Gottingeu,  1867. 


COMMENTAllY    ON    ST.   LLKK. 


29 


The  following  is  a  table  of  the  opinions  of  which  we  have  just  given  an  account : 
I. -SCHOOL  OP  TUEBINGEN. 


Baub. 


Matthew 

I 


Luke      \ 


Mark. 


uke    ) 


Mark 
L 


VOLKHAR. 

Matthew. 


Matthew 

I 

Mark 


HiLQENFELD. 

Luke. 


KOESTLIN. 

Markd.");  Mattliew 


Mark  (II.)  or  Gospel  of  Peter    ,      _, 
I  I      H 

Luke. 


J  S 


Mark 
Matt 


ElTSCHL. 


Luke. 


irk      ) 

I  }■  Luk 

he\T   ) 


n.— INDEPENDENT  SYSTEMS. 

Blekk. 

Primitive  Gospel 

Mattlu  w ;     Luke 


EWALD. 

Gosp.  of  Phil.  Lofria 


Mark  (I.) 

I 
Matthew. 


Luke. 


J 


Reuss,  etc. 
Mark  (I.)  Log<a 

Mark  (II.)  ;  Matthew  ;  Luke. 


Mark. 
Weiss. 
Matthew  (I.) 


K1.0STERMANN. 


I 
Miirk 


Matthew  UI.);  Luke. 


Matthew 

I 

Mark 


cw    ) 

v  Luke. 


Tliu  .state  of  things  which  this  tabic  portrays  is  not  certainly  such  as  to  lead  us  to 
regard  the  question  as  solved,  and  the  door  closed  against  fresh  attempts  to  explain 
the  origin  of  the  synoptics,  particularly  the  origin  of  Luke,  which  is  the  final  term  of 
the  proi)lem. 

SEC.    V. — ON  THE  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  THIRD   GOSPEL. 

Are  we  sure  that  we  possess  the  book  which  we  are  about  to  study  us  it  came  from 
its  author's  hands  ?  Taken  as  a  whole,  yes.  As  guarantees  of  it,  we  have — 1.  The 
general  agreement  of  our  text  with  the  most  ancient  versions,  the  Peschito  and  the 
Italic,  which  date  from  the  second  century,  and  with  the  three  Egyptian  translations 
made  tit  the  beginning  of  the  third  ;  2.  The  general  agreement  of  this  text  with  tlie 
quotations  of  the  Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  Justin,  Tatian,  Ireuaeus, 
Clement,  TertuUian,  Origen,  etc.  ;  lastly,  3.  Tiie  general  uniformity  of  the  manu- 
scripts in  which  the  Greek  text  has  been  preserved.  If  any  great  changes  had  been 
introduced  into  the  text,  there  would  inevitabl}'  have  been  much  greater  differences 
among  all  these  documents.  These  difierent  tests  prove  tliat  the  third  Gosjk-I.  just 
as  we  have  it,  was  already  in  existence  in  the  churches  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies. A  text  so  universally  diffused  could  only  proceed  from  the  text  that  was 
received  from  the  very  first. 

The  manuscripts  containing  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  consist  of  majuscules, 
or  manuscripts  written  in  uncial  letters  (until  the  tenth  centurj'),  and  of  minuscules 
or  manuscripts  written  in  small  or  cursive  writing  (from  the  tenth  century).  The 
manuscripts  known  at  the  present  day,  containing  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Gospels 
number  nearly  44  mMJuscules,  and  more  tlian  500  minuscules.  The  former  are,  for 
their  antiquity  and  variety,  the  most  important.  Of  this  nunabur,  19  contain  the  Gospel 


30  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

of  Luke  more  or  less  complete  ;  of  11  there  only  remuin  some  fragments,  or  series 
of  fragments  :  there  are,  in  all,  30  documents  prior  to  the  tenth  century. 
Two  of  the  fourtii  century  : 

1.  The  Sinaiticus  (it). 

2.  The  Vaticanus  (B.) 
Five  of  the  fifth  century  : 

o.  The  Alexandrinus  (A.). 

4.  The  Codex  Ephrcemi  (C). 

5.  Twentj'-eight  palimpsest  leaves  (I). 

6.  Palimpsest  fragments  found  at  Wolfenbiittel  (Q). 

7.  Different  fragments,  Greek  with  a  Sahidic  verssiun,  comprised  in  the  Saliidic 

collection  of  Woide  (T").     T'^  denotes  similar  fragments  of  the  seventh 
century. 
Five  of  the  sixth  century  : 

8.  The  Cantabrigiensis  (D). 

J).  Fragments  of  a  manuscript  de  luxe,  written  in  letters  of  silver  and  gold  (N). 

10.  The  hymns  of  Luke  (chap.  1,  2),   preserved  in  some  psalleis  (U^.     0"^'='^ 

denote  similar  portions  of  the  seventh  and  ninth  centuries. 

11.  Fragments  of  a  palimpsest  of  Loudon  (R). 

12.  Fragments  of  WuLfenbuttel  (P). 
Five  of  the  eighth  century  : 

18.  The  Basiliensis  (E). 

14.  A  manuscript  of  Paris  (L). 

15.  Fragments  of  the  Gospels,  of  Paris  and  of  Naples  (W"  ;  "W^). 

16.  Fragment  of  Luke  at  St.  Petersburg  (9''). 

17.  The   Zacynthms,   a  palimpsest    manuscript,   found  at  Zante,    comprising 

the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Luke  (S  in  Tischendorf,  Z  in  our  commen- 
tary)- 
Eight  of  the  ninth  century  : 

18.  Tlie  Codex  Boreeli  (F). 

19.  The  Ci/pHus  (K). 

20.  A  manuscript  of  Paris  (M). 

21.  A  manuscript  of  Munich  (X). 

22.  A  manuscript  of  Oxford  (r). 

23.  The  San  Oallensis  (A). 

24.  A  manuscript  of  Oxford  (A). 

25.  A  manuscript  found  at  Smyrna,  and  deposited  at  St.  Petersburg  (11). 
Five  of  the  tenth  century  : 

26.  27.  The  two  Codd.  of  Seidd  (G,  H). 
28.  A  manuscript  of  the  Vatican  (S). 
2y.  A  manuscript  of  Venice  (U). 

80.  A  manuscript  of  Moscow  (V). 

Adding  together  all  the  various  readings  which  these  documents  contain,  we  find 
from  five  to  six  thousand  of  them.  But  in  geneial  they  are  of  very  secondary  im- 
portance, and  involve  no  change  in  the  matter  of  the  Gospel  history. 

On  a  closer  study  of  them,  it  is  observed  that  certain  manuscripts  habitually  go 
together  in  opposition  to  others,  and  thus  two  principal  forms  of  the  text  are  estab- 
lished—one which  is  generally  found  in  the  most  ancient  majuscules,  another  which 


('()m.mi:ntaky  ox  st.  liki:.  31 

Is  met  ■with  in  tlic  minuscules  and  in  llic  less  ancient  of  tlie  mnjuscules.  Some  man- 
uscripts oscillate  belwccu  tliese  two  foims. 

As  the  text  on  whicli  Erasmus  formed  the  first  edition  of  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek  was  that  of  certain  minuscules  in  tiie  Bale  lil)rary,  and  tliis  text  has  continued 
to  form  the  basis  of  subsequent  editions,  of  whicii  that  of  tlie  Elzevirs  of  1G33  is 
the  most  generally  dilfused,  it  is  evident  that  this,  called  the  Received  Text,  is  rather 
that  of  the  minuscules  aud  less  ancient  majuscules  than  the  text  of  the  old  majus- 
cules. This  text  is  also  called  Byzantine,  because  it  is  piobably  the  one  which  was 
unifi)rniiy  tixed  in  the  cuuiches  of  the  Greek  Empire.  Tliuse  of  our  majuscules 
which  lepresent  it  are  the  following  :  E.  F.  G.  11.  11.  M.  S.  U.  V.  T.  A.  II.  This 
form  of  the  text  is  also  called  Asiatic. 

The  opposite  form,  which  is  f^und  in  the  older  majuscules,  B.  G.  L.  R.  X  Z. ,  appears 
to  come  from  Alexandria,  wheie,  in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Church,  manuscripts 
were  most  largely'  produced.  For  this  reason  this  text  takes  the  name  of  Alexandrine. 
Some  manuscripts,  while  ordinarily  following  the  Alexandrine,  differ  from  them 
m'jre  or  less  frequently  ;  these  are  !S.  A.  D.  A.  Tlie  text  of  i*  and  of  D  resembles,  in 
many  instances,  the  ancient  Latin  translation,  the  Italic. 

A  middle  form  between  these  two  principal  texts  is  found  in  the  fragments 
denoted  by  N.  O.  W.  T.  0. 

It  is  a  constant  question,  which  of  the  two  texts,  the  Alexandrine  or  the  Byzan- 
tine, reproduces  with  the  greatest  fidelity  the  text  of  the  oiiginal  document.  It  is  a 
question  whicli,  in  our  opinion,  cannot  be  answered  in  a  general  way  and  a  priori, 
and  which  must  be  solved  in  each  particular  instance  by  exegetical  skill. 

ABBREVIATIONS. 

The  abbreviations  we  shall  use  are  generally  those  which  Tischendorf  has  adopted 
in  his  eighth  edition. 

1.  Fatcers. 

Jusl.,  Justin  ;  Ir.,  Irenasus  ;  Or.,  Origen,  etc. 

2.  Veusions. 
Vss.,  versions. 

It.,  the  Italic,  comprising  the  different  Latin  translations  prior  to  Jerome's  (from 
the  second  century)  :  a,  b,  c,  etc.  denote  the  ditterent  documents  of  the  Italic  ;  a  the 
Vfrcfllemfi-i  (4th  c.)  ;  b  the  Vcronensis  (oth  c.)  ;  c  the  Colberti/ius  (11th  c),  etc. 

Vg.,  the  Vulrjdte,  Jerome's  translation  (4th  c.) ;  Am.,  Fuld..  denote  the  principal 
documents  of  this  translation — the  Amiatimis  (6th  c  ),  the  Fuldemia  (id.),  etc. 

Syr.,  the  Syriac  translations.  Syr"'',  the  raschifo,  Schaaf's  edition  ;  Syr""',  a 
more  ancient  translation  than  the  Peschito,  discovered  and  published  by  Cuieton. 
Syr.  in  brief  (in  our  own  use),  these  two  united. 

Cop.,  the  Coptic  translation  (:5d  c). 

8.  Manl'scripts. 

Mss. ,  the  manuscripts  ;  ^Ijj.,  the  majuscules  ;  ]Mnu.,  the  minuscules. 

The  letter  denoting  a  manuscript  with  the  sign  *  (i**,  B*)  denotes  the  original  text 
in  opp  jsition  to  corrections  inserted  in  the  text  afterward.  The  small  figures  adiied 
to  this  same  letter  (B',  C-,  itc.)  signify  first,  second  correction.     For  the  manuscript 


32  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.    LUKE. 

i4.  which  is  in  a  peculiar  condition,  Ss*",  !*''  denote  the  most  ancient  corrections,  made 
by  at  ](;ast  two  dilferent  liands  according  to  the  text  of  different  mss.  from  that  from 
whicli  !i^  was  cojiied,  and  !!^'=  similar  corrections,  but  made  a  little  later  (7ih  c),  and 
diffeiiug  sometimes  from  each  other!*"*'  !*''')•  F'\  some  quotations  from  the  Gos- 
pels annotated  in  the  margin  of  the  Coislinianus  (II.  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul). 

4.  Editions. 

T.  R.,  the  received  text,  viz,,  the  ed.  Elzevir  of  1G33,  which  is  generally  the  repro- 
dnctioD  of  the  third  ed.  of  Stephens  ;  S  (Steph.)  denotes  the  received  text  and  tiiat  of 
Stephens  united,  where  they  are  identical  ;  s^  (Steph.  Elzev.),  the  received  text  alone, 
in  the  rate  instances  in  which  these  two  texts  differ. 

THE   TITLE   OF  THE   GOSPEL. 

The  shortest  form  is  found  in!*.  V>.  F.,  Kma  Aovialv.  The  greater  part  of  the 
Mjj.  read  (vayye/Aov  laira  Aovkuv.  The  T.  R.  ,  with  s(>me  3Inn.  only,  to  Karu  Aovkuv 
Evayy.      Some  Mun.,  to  kutu.  \ovkuv  uyiov  evayy. 

In  the  opinion  of  several  scholars  (Rcuss.  "  Gesch.  der  hoil.  Schr.  N.  T."  §  177), 
the  prep.  Kara,  according  to,  sign  ifu^s  not :  composed  by,  but:  diawn  up  according 
to  the  conception  of.  .  .  .  Thus  this  title,  so  far  from  affirming  that  our  Gospel 
was  composed  by  the  person  designated,  would  rather  deny  it.  This  sense  does  not 
appear  to  us  admissible.  Not  only  may  (he  preposition  /caru  apply  to  the  writer  him- 
self, as  the  following  expressions  prove  :  ij  nard  Mumia  nEvrdTEvxai  (the  Pentateuch 
according  to  Moses)  in  Epiphanius  ;  7/  unQ'  'Bpudorov  hrofiia  (the  history  according  to 
Herodotus)  in  Diodorus  ;  MarOalo;  .  .  .  ypacp/)  Trapaduvi  to  kclt'  avrov  evayyiAiop  (Mat- 
thew having  but  in  writing  the  Gospel  according  t>)  him)  in  Eusebius  (H.  Eccl.  iii. 
24)  ; — but  this  preposition  must  have  this  sense  in  cur  title.  For,  1.  The  titles  of  our 
four  Gospels  bear  too  close  a  resemblance  to  each  other  to  have  come  from  the 
authors  of  these  writings  ;  they  must  have  been  framed  by  the  Church  when  it 
formed  the  collection  of  the  Gospels.  Now  the  opinion  of  the  Church,  as  far  as  we 
can  trace  it,  has  always  been,  that  these  writings  were  composed  by  the  persons 
named  in  the  titles.  2.  With  respe(;t  to  the  third  Gospel  in  paiticular,  no  other  sense 
is  possible.  Apostles  and  eye-witnesses,  such  as  Matthew  or  John,  might  have 
created  an  original  conception  of  the  Gospel,  and  afterward  a  different  writer  might 
have  produced  a  narrative  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  according  to  this  type.  But  this 
supposition  is  not  applicable  to  persons  so  secondary  and  dependent  as  Luke  or  Mark. 
This  Luke,  whom  the  title  designates  as  the  author  of  our  Gospel,  can  be  no  other 
than  the  companion  of  Paul.  The  evangelical  history  mentions  no  other  person  of 
this  name.  As  to  the  term  Gospel,  it  appears  to  us  very  doubtful  whether  in  our 
four  titles  it  indicates  the  writings  themselves.  This  term  applies  rather,  as  through- 
out the  New  Testament,  to  the  facts  related,  to  the  contents  of  the  books,  to  the 
coming  of  Christ — this  merciful  message  of  God  to  mankind.  The  complement 
understood  after  EvayyiTnov  is  Qeov  ;  comp.  Rcmi  1  : 1.  This  good  news,  though  one 
in  itself,  is  presented  to  the  world  under  Tour  different  aspects  in  these  four  narra- 
tives. The  meaning  then  is,  '  f  he  good  news  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  according  to 
the  version  of  .  .  ."  It  ht\\e  EvayyPuoi' TE7i)(l/inp(pov,  the  Gospel  with  four  faces, 
of  which  Irenajus  still  speaks  toward  the  end  of  the  second  century,  even  after  the 
term  Gospel  had  been  already  applied  by  Justin  to  the  written  Gospels. 


co.mmi:ntauv  on  st.  iake.  33 

PROLOGUE. 
Chap.  1  : 1-4. 

The  first  of  our  synoptic  Gospels  opens  witli  a  genealogy.  This  mode  of  entering 
upon  ihe  subject  Irausports  us  intu  a  completely  Jewish  wurlJ.  This  preamble  is,  us 
it  were,  a  oouliuualion  of  ihe  geuealagical  registers  of  Genesis  ;  iu  the  liiiiXol 
yei'eneuti  of  Mallhew  (1  :  1)  we  have  again  the  Elle  Tholetlulh  of  JM.>ses. 

Ilaw  different  Luke's  prologue,  and  in  what  an  euliiely  diirerent  atmosphere  it 
places  us  from  the  first  !  Not  only  is  it  wntten  iu  most  classical  Gteek,  but  it 
reminds  us  by  its  contents  of  the  simihir  preambles  of  the  laoht  illustrious  Greek  his- 
torians, especially  those  of  Herodotus  and  Thueydides.  The  more  thoroughly  we 
e.vamiue  it,  the  more  we  find  of  that  delicacy  of  sentiment  and  refinement  of  mind 
•which  constitute  the  predominant  traits  of  the  Hellenic  character.  Baur,  it  is  true, 
thought  he  discerned  in  it  the  work  of  a  foiger.  Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  admiies  its 
true  simplicity,  noble  modesty,  and  terse  conciseness.*  It  appears  to  us,  as  to  H.)liz- 
mann.f  "  that  between  these  two  opinions  the  choice  is  not  difficult."  The  authar 
does  not  seek  to  put  himself  in  the  rank  of  the  Christian  authorities  ;  he  places  him- 
self modes!  1}^  among  men  of  the  second  order.  He  feels  it  necessary  to  excuse  the 
boldness  of  his  enterpiise,  by  referring  to  the  numerous  analogous  attempts  that  have 
preceded  his  own.  He  does  not  pernut  himself  to  undertake  the  woik  of  writing  u 
Gospel  history  until  he  has  furnished  himself  with  all  the  aids  fitted  to  enable  him  to 
attain  the  lofty  aim  besets  before  him.  Theie  is  a  striking  contrast  between  his 
frank  and  modest  attitude  and  that  of  a  foiger.  It  excludes  even  the  ambitious  part 
of  a  secretary  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  which  tiaditian  has  not  been  slow  to  claim  for  the 
author  of  our  Gos()el. 

This  prologue  is  not  least  interesting  for  the  information  it  contains  respecting  the 
earliest  attempts  at  writing  histories  of  the  Gospel  Apart  from  these  first  lines  nf 
Luke,  "we  know  abstdutcly  nothing  definite  about  the  more  ancient  nanalives  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  which  preceded  the  composition  of  our  Gospels.  Therefore  every 
theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  sjmoptics,  which  is  not  constructed  out  of  the  materials 
furni.shed  by  this  preface,  runs  the  risk  of  being  thrown  aside  as  a  tissue  of  vain 
hypotheses  the  day  after  it  has  seen  the  light 

This  introduction  is  a  dedication,  in  which  Luke  initiates  the  reader  into  the  idea, 
method,  and  aim  of  his  work.  He  is  far  from  being  the  first  who  has  attempted  to 
handle  this  great  subject  (I'er.  1).  Numerous  written  narratives  on  the  history  of 
Jesus  are  already  in  existence  ;  they  all  of  them  rest  on  the  oral  narrations  of  the 
apostles  (vcr.  2).  But  while  drawing  also  on  this  original  source,  TiUke  has  colh>cted 
more  particular  information,  in  order  to  supplement,  select,  and  propeily  arrange  the 
materials  for  which  the  Church  is  indebled  lo  apostolic  tradition.  His  aim,  lastly,  is 
to  furnish  his  readers,  by  this  connected  account  of  the  facts,  with  the  moans  of 
establishing  their  certainty  (ver.  4). 

Vers.  1-4.  "  8ince,  as  is  known,  many  have  undertaken  to  compose  a  narrative  of 
the  events  which  have, been  accomplished  among  us,  (2)  in  conformity  wilh  that 
which  they  have  handed  down  to  us  who  were  eye-witnesses  of  them  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  who  became  ministers  of  the  woid,  (3)  I  have  thought  good  also  myself, 

*  "  Jahrbiichcr,"  ii.  p.  128.  f  "  Die  Synoptlschen  Evangelien,"  p.  oOS. 


34  COMMEXTAIIY    OX    ST.   LLKE. 

after  caref nil}' informing  myself  of  all  these  facts  from  their  commencemeut,  to  write 
a  consecutive  account  of  them  for  thee,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  (4)  iu  oider  ihut 
thou  mightest  know  the  immovable  ceitainty  of  the  instruclious  whieli  thou  hast 
received."  *  This  period,  truly  Greek  in  its  style,  has  lieen  composed  with  pailicuiur 
oare.  We  do  not  find  a  style  like  it  in  all  tlie  New  Testament,  except  at  the  end  of 
t!ie  Acts  and  in  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews.  As  to  the  thouglit  of  this  prologue,  it 
cannot  be  belter  summed  up  than  in  these  lines  of  Tholuck.  "  Altliougli  not  an 
jmni'iidiate  witness  of  the  facts  tliat  took  place,  I  have  none  the  less  undeital^en,  fol- 
lowing the  example  of  many  others,  to  publish  an  account  of  them  according  to  the 
iuformation  I  have  gatliered."  f 

The  conjunction  iKei.6r/7rep  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  ;  it  has  a 
certain  solemnity.  To  the  idea  of  since  {i-^ei),  6r)  adds  that  of  notoriety  :  "  since,  as 
is  well  known  :"  Trep  draws  attention  to  tlie  relation  between  the  great  number  of 
these  writings  and  the  importance  of  the  events  related  :  It  is  so  ((5?;),  and  it  could  not 
be  otherwise  (:rep).  The  relation  between  the  since  thus  defined  and  the  piincipal 
verb,  1  have  ihouylit  good,  is  easy  to  seize.  If  my  numerous  predecessors  have  not 
been  blamed,  why  should  I  be  blamed,  who  am  only  walking  in  their  steps  ?  The 
Xnxvivi-Ktxtip-qrsnv  have  undertaken,  involves  no  blame  of  the  skill  of  these  predecessors, 
as  several  Fathers  have  thought  ;  the  1  have  thovght  good  also  myself  is  sufficient  to 
exclude  this  supposition.  This  expression  is  suiigested  by  the  greatness  of  the  task, 
and  contains  a  slight  allusion  to  the  insufficiency  of  the  attempts  hitherto  made  to 
accomplish  it. 

The  nature  of  these  older  writings  is  indicated  by  the  term  avara^aaOaL  (UijyriaLV,  to 
set  in  order  a  narrative.  It  is  a  question,  as  Thiersch  X  says,  of  an  attempt  at  arrange- 
ment. Did  this  arrangement  consist  m  the  harmonizing  of  a  number  of  separate 
wiitiugs  into  a  single  whole,  so  as  to  make  a  consecutive  history  of  tliem  ?  In  this 
case,  we  should  have  to  admit  that  the  wrileis  of  whom  Luke  speaks  had  al a ady 
found  in  the  Church  a  number  of  short  writings  on  particular  events,  which  they 
had  simply  united:  their  work  would  thus  constitute  a  second  step  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  history.  But  the  expression,  "  in  conformity  with 
that  which  they  have  handed  down  to  us,"  hardly  leaves  room  for  intermediate  ac- 
counts between  the  apostolic  tradition  and  the  writings  of  which  Luke  speaks.  The 
notion  of  arrangement,  then,  refers  lather  to  the  facts  themselves  which  these  authors 
had  co-ordinated  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  a  consecutive  narrative  of  them.  The 
term  diegesis  designates  not,  as  Schleiermacher  maintained,  recitals  of  isolated  facts, 
but  a  complete  narrative. 

What  idea  should  we  form  of  these  writings,  and  are  they  to  be  ranked  among  the 
sources  on  which  Luke  has  diawn  ?   Certain  extra-canonical  Gospels,  which  criticism 

*  A  literal  translation  of  M.  Godet's  rendering  of  Luke's  preface  is  given  here, 
for  the  sake  of  iiarmonizing  the  text  with  the  veibai  comments  which  follow  in  the 
next  paiagraph  ;  but,  except  when  something  turns  on  our  author's  rendering,  tlie 
passages  commented  on  will  be  given  in  the  woids  of  the  A.  V.  A  close  and  hapjiy 
translation  of  the  original  Greek  into  French  does  not  always  admit  of  bein.ir  lepio- 
duced  literally  in  English,  and  a  free  translation  of  a  translation  is  of  little  service  for 
purposes  of  exegesis. — Note  by  the  I'randator. 

•f  "  Glaubwiirdigk.  der  evang.  Gesch."  ]■>.  143. 

X  "  Versuch  zur  ITerstelhirig  des  liislniisclien  Standpunkts  fiir  die  Kritik  der 
Neufestamentl.  Schr."  p.  104  (a  work  which  we  caniK;!  too  strongly  ifccoinrnend  lo 
beginners,  although  we  Me  far  from  sliaiing  all  its  views) 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  35 

nas  somciiiiies  regarded  as  prior  to  Luke's,  may  be  thought  of— that  of  the  Hebrews, 
for  example,  iu  which  Lessing  was  di5>i)i)sed  lo  liud  the  coinuiou  source  of  our  Uueo 
synoptics;  or  that  of  Maiciuu,  which  Uuschl  aud  liaur  regaided  as  the  piiucipal 
docuineut'reproduced  by  Luke.*  But  does  uoi  IradilioQ  exhibit  itself  in  these  wiit- 
in"-s  in  a  form  alieady  perceptibly  alleied,  and  very  far  removed  from  the  primitive 
pmity  and  fieshuess  which  characieiize  our  canonical  Gospels  V  They  are,  then, 
later  than  Luke. 

Or  does  Luke  allude  to  our  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  ?  This  is  nviintained 
by  Ihdse  who  think  that  Luke  wrote  after  MatlheAV  and  Mark  (Hug),  or  only  after 
Maltlicw  (Griesbach,  etc.).  But  however  little  Luke  shared  iu  the  traditional 
opinion  which  attributed  the  first  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  Matthew,  he  could  not  speak 
of  that  writing  as  he  speaks  here  ;  for  he  clearly  opposes  to  the  writers  of  the  tradi- 
tion (the  noA/.oi,  ver.  1),  the  apostles  who  were  the  authors  of  it.  It  may  be  affirmed, 
from  the  connection  of  ver.  3  with  ver.  1,  that  Luke  was  not  acquainted  with  a  single 
written  Gospel  emanating  from  an  apostle.  As  to  the  collection  of  the  "  Logia" 
(discourses  of  the  Lord),  which  some  attribute  to  Matthew,  it  certainly  would  not  be 
excluded  by  Luke's  expressions  ;  for  the  term  diegesis  denotes  a  recital,  a  historical 
narrative.  Hug,  in  his  desire  to  save  his  hypothesis,  according  to  which  Luke  made 
use  of  Matthew,  explained  vers.  1  aud  2  in  this  sense  :  "  Many  have  undertaken  to 
compose  written  Gospels  similar  to  those  which  the  apostles  bequeathed  to 
us.  .  ."  But  this  sense  would  require  dnoia  {i3ci3/.ia)  instead  of  «a0u5,f  and  has  not 
been  accepted  by  any  one.  As  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  Luke's  expressions  might 
certainly  suit  this  writing.  For,  according  to  tradition,  Mark  made  use  in  his  narra- 
tive of  the  accounts  of  an  eye-witness,  St.  Peter.  But  still  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  Lake  would  have  employed  the  term  undertake  in  speaking  of  a  work  which 
was  received  in  the  Church  as  one  of  the  essential  documents  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
For  the  rest,  exegesis  alone  can  determiuc  whether  Luke  really  had  Mark  before  him 
either  in  its  present  or  in  a  more  ancient  form.  It  appears  probable,  therefore,  to 
me,  that  the  works  to  which  Luke  alludes  are  writings  really  unknown  and  lost. 
Their  incompleteness  comlemijed  them  to  exiinction,  in  proportion  as  writings  of 
superior  value,  such  as  our  synoptics,  spiead  through  the  Chuich. 

As  to  whether  Luke  availed  himself  of  these  writings,  and  in  anj'  way  embodied 
Ihcm  in  his  own  work,  he  does  not  inform  us.  But  is  it  not  probable,  since  he  was 
acquainted  with  them,  that  he  would  make  some  use  of  them  ?  Every  aid  would 
appear  precious  to  him  in  a  work  the  impoitance  of  which  he  so  deeply  felt. 

The  subject  of  these  narratives  is  set  forth  in  expressions  that  have  a  touch  of 
solemnity:  "the  events  winch  have  been  accomplished  among  us. "  W/.-npoipopeiv  \9 
a  word  analogous  in  composition  and  meaning  to  T£?.£a(popelv  {to  brinf/  to  an  end,  to 
maturiti/,  8  :  14).  It  signifies,  when  it  refers  to  a  fact,  to  bring  it  to  complete 
accomplishmL-nt  (2  Tim.  4  :  .'5,  to  accomplish  the  ministry  ;  ver.  17,  to  accomplish  [to 
finish  rendering]  the  testimony);  and  when  it  refers  to  a  person  it  meanstocau.se 
him  to  attain  inward  fulness  [uf  conviction],  that  is  to  say,  a  conviction  whicii  leaves 
no  room  for  doubt  (Rom.  4  :  21,  14  :  5  ;  Heb.  10  :  22,  etc.).  With  a  substantive  such 
as  'pdynara,  the  second  sense  is  iriadmissil)le.  Nevertheless,  it  has  been  defended  by 
some  of  the  Fathers,  by  some  modern  interpreters,  as  Beza,  Grolius,  Olshausen,  and 

*  Rif.schl  has  since  withdrawn  this  assertion. 
I  Tliicisdi,  "  Veisuch,"  etc.,  p.  211. 


36  COMMEXTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

by  Meyer,  who  conclu  les  from  2  Tim.  4  :  17  that  TT/i7]po<pelaQai  may  also  be  applied  to 
tuiuys  m  Ihe  seuse  of  being  beheved.  But,  wbeu  Puul  sii^s,  "  lu  order  thai  Ihe  tesli- 
niouy  mighL  be  uccompliahcd,  aiid  thai  all  the  GeuLiles  might  hear  it,"  the  last  vords 
plainly  show  that  accomplished  signilies  not  tuUy  believed,  but  fully  rendered.  This 
term,  which  has  more  weight  ihau  llie  simple  ir/irjpovi',  is  desiguedl}'^  chosen  here  to 
indicate  laaL  these  events  weie  not  simple  accidents,  but  accomplished  a  preconceived 
plan  ;  the  divme  thought  carried  into  execution  was,  as  it  weie,  a  measure  which 
tilled  up  itself.  Doubtle.-s,  what  has  led  many  interpreters  to  prefer  ihe  sense  of 
ludy  believed,  is  the  complement  among  us.  This  is  said  that  the  facts  of  the 
Gospel  were  accomplished  uot  only  in  the  presence  of  believers,  but  ))efore  the  Jewish 
people  and  the  whole  world.  This  is  true  ;  but  was  not  Jesus  from  the  beginning 
surrounded  by  a  circle  of  disciples,  chosen  to  be  witnesses  of  His  life  ?  It  is  with 
Uiis  meaning  that  John  says,  20  :30,  "  Jesus  did  many  other  miracles  in  the  presence 
of  His  disciples  ;"  and  1  :  14,  "  He  dwelt  among  us  {h  fjulv),  and  we  saw  His  glory" 
—a  sentence  in  which  the  last  words  limit  the  tis  to  the  circle  of  believers.  The  mean- 
ing IS  Ihe  same  here.  In  ver.  2  the  sense  of  the  word  us  is  more  limited  still,  flere 
lis  denotes  the  Church  with  the  apostles  ;  in  ver.  2,  the  Church  apart  fnun  the 
apostles.  Bleek  extends  Ihe  meaning  of  the  word  ns,  in  ver.  1,  to  the  whole  con- 
temporary generation,  both  within  and  without  the  Church.  But  Luke,  writing  for 
believers,  could  scarcely  use  us  in  such  a  general  sense  as  this.  In  this  expression, 
"  the  events  accomplished  among  us,"  did  the  author  include  also  the  contents  of  the 
book  of  the  Acts,  and  did  he  intend  the  preface  to  apply  to  the  two  books,  so  that 
the  Acts  would  be  just  the  second  volume  of  the  Gospel?  The  words  among  us 
would  be  more  easily  explained  in  this  case,  and  the  mei:lion  made  of  the  apostles  as 
ministers  of  the  word  (ver.  2)  might  lead  us  to  this  supposition.  It  is  not  probable, 
however,  that  Luke  would  have  applied  to  the  facts  related  in  the  Acts  the  expressions 
Tr«p«fSo,T<?,  tradition  (ver.  2),  and  KaTJ^xnni-i,  instruction  (ver.  4).  The  subject  of  apos- 
tolical tradition  and  catechetical  instruction  could  only  be  the  history  and  teaching  of 
Jesus.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  infer  from  this  preface  that  when  Luke  wrote 
his  Gospel  he  had  in  view  the  composition  of  the  book  of  the  Acts. 

Ver.  2.  Traditiim  emanating  from  the  apostles  was  the  common  source,  according 
to  ver.  2,  of  all  the  first  written  narratives.  The  general  accuracy  of  these  accounts 
follows  from  /cnOuS,  in  conformity  with  that  which.  This  coujunctiou  can  only  refer 
to  the  principal  thought  of  ver.  1,  to  compose  a  narrative,  and  not  to  the  secondary 
idea,  izen/.rijto'poorjiievuv ,  as  Olshauseu  thinks,  who  translates,  "  fully  believed  in  con- 
formity with  the  account  of  the  first  witnesses."  As  the  two  substantives,  nvroTrrai 
and  vTTTipETaL,  witnesses  and  ministers,  have  each  certain  defining  expressions  which 
especially  belong  to  them' (the  ^r&t,  an' apx?/; .  frorn  the  beginning,  and  the  second, 
jEvofiEvoi,  become,  and  tov  Xoyov,  of  tJie  word),  the  most  simple  construction  appears  to 
us  to  be  to  regard  ol,  the,  as  a  pronoun,  and  make  it  the  subject  of  the  proposition  : 
they  (the  men  about  to  be  pointed  out).  This  subject  is  defined  by  the  two  following 
substantives,  which  are  in  apposition,  and  indicate  the  qualification  in  virtue  of 
which  these  men  became  the  authors  of  the  tradition.  1.  Witnesses  from  the  begin- 
ning. The  word  apxv,  beginning,  in  this  context,  can  only  refer  to  the  commencement 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  particulnrly  to  His  baptism,  as  the  starting-point  of  those 
tilings  which  have  been  accomplished  among  us.  Cump.  Acts  1  :  21,  22,  for  the 
sense  ;  and  for  the  ex[)ression,  John  15  :  27,  16  :  4.  Olshausen  would  extend  the 
application  of  this  title  of  witnesses  from  the  beginning  to  the  witnesses  of  the  birth 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  37 

and  infiincy  of  Jesus.  But  the  expression  hcmme  viinMe.ru  of  the  word  docs  not 
allow  of  this  application.  2.  3Iinislers  of  the  word  ;  become  rniuisters,  as  tiie  text 
liicraily  reads.  Tiiis  expression  is  in  contrast  with  the  pieceding.  The.se  men  hegim 
afieiward  to  be  ministers  of  the  word  ;  they  only  became  sucli  after  Ptntecost.  It 
was  liien  tliat  their  part  as  witnesses  was  transformed  into  that  of  pieaciieis.  The 
.■-(  nse  then  is  :  "  Tiiose  who  were  witnesses  from  the  commencement,  and  who  nfler- 
ward  l)ecame  ministers  of  the  word."  If  vTTrjfjirai,  mvmters,  is  thus  taken  as  a  second 
noun  of  apposition  with  ol,  parallel  to  the  tirst,  there  is  no  longer  any  dilheulty  in 
referring  the  complement  tov  ?.oyov,  of  (he  word,  to  vTrfifjerai,  ministers,  alone,  and 
taking  this  word  in  its  ordinary  sense  of  preaching  the  Gospel.  This  also  disposes  of 
the  reason  which  induced  certain  Fathers  (Origen.  Athauaisus)  to  give  the  term  icord 
the  meaning  of  the  eternal  Word  (John  1  :  1),  which  is  very  forced  in  this  connec- 
tion. Only  in  this  way  could  they  make  this  complement  depend  simultaneously  on 
the  two  substantives,  witnesses  and  ministers.  The  same  motive  led  Beza,  Grotius, 
and  Bleek  to  understand  the  term  tcord  here  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  frequently 
taken — the  thing  related  :  "  eye- witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  Gospel  history."  But 
in  passages  where  the  term  word  bears  this  meaning,  it  is  fixed  by  some  defining  ex- 
pre.ssion  :  thus,  at  ver.  4  by  the  relative  proposition  and,  in  Acts  8  :21,  15  :  G (which 
Bleek  quotes),  by  a  demonstrative  pronoun. 

With  the  third  verse  we  reach  the  principal  proposition.  Luke  places  himself  by 
the  KUfioi,  mynelf  also,  in  the  same  rank  as  his  predecessors.  lie  does  not  possess, 
any  more  than  they,  a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  history  as  a  witness  ;  he  belongs  to 
the  second  generation  of  the  vuEli,  us  (ver.  2),  which  is  dependent  on  the  narratives 
of  the  apostles.  Some  Italic  mss.  add  here  Xomilii,  ct  spiritui  sancto  (it  has  pleased  me 
and  the  Holy  Spiiit),  a  gloss  taken  from  Acts  lo  :  28,  which  clearly  shows  in  what 
direction  the  tradition  was  gradually'  altered. 

While  placing  himself  in  the  same  rank  as  his  predecessors,  Luke  nevertheless 
claims  a  certain  superiority  in  comparison  with  them.  Otherwise,  why  add  to  their 
writings,  which  are  already  numerous  (toZ^oj),  a  fresh  attempt?  This  superiority  is 
the  result  of  his  not  having  confined  himself  to  collecting  the  apostolic  traditions 
current  in  the  Church.  Before  [iroceediug  to  write,  he  obtained  exact  information, 
by  means  of  which  he  was  enabled  to  select,  supplement,  and  arrange  the  materials 
furnished  by  those  oial  narratives  which  lus  predecessors  had  contented  themselves 
with  reproducing  just  as  they  were.  The  verb  iraiKiKohwOeiv,  to  follow  step  bij  step,  is 
not  used  here  in  the  literal  sense  ;  this  sense  would  require  ■rrdaiv  to  be  taken  as 
ma.sculine  :  all  the  apostles,  and  thus  would  lead  to  an  egregiously  false  idea  ;  the 
author  could  not  have  accompanied  all  the  apostles  !  The  verb,  therefore,  must  be 
taken  in  the  figurative  sense  which  it  frequently  has  in  the  classics  :  to  study  any- 
thing point  by  point  ;  thus  Demoslh.  do  coronil,  53  ;  TzapaKoXovOTjKui  toI<;  npayuaaiv 
uTz'  (Ipx'n-  Comp.  3  Tim.  3  :  10,  where  we  see  the  transition  from  the  purely  literal 
to  the  figurative  meaning.  The  ndvra,  all  things,  are  the  events  related  (ver.  1). 
Luke  might  have  put  the  participle  in  the  accusative  :  ■iTapaKo?.ovOT}K6ra  ;  but  then  he 
would  only  have  indicated  the  succession  of  the  two  a(;tions — the  acquisition  of  in- 
formation, and  the  composition  which  followed  it.  This  is  not  his  thought.  The 
dative  makes  the  information  obtained  a  quality  inherent  in  his  person,  which  consti- 
tutes his  (lualification  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  work. 

Luke's  information  bore  particularly  on  three  points  :  1.  He  sought  first  of  all  to 
go  back  to  the  origin  of  the  fact.s,  to  the  very  starting-point  of  this  res  Christiana 


38  COilMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

wliicli  he  desired  to  describe.  Thiis  is  expressed  in  the  word  avudev,  literally  from 
above,  from  the  very  beginning.  The  author  compares  himself  to  a  traveller  who 
tries  to  discover  the  source  of  a  river,  in  order  that  he  may  descend  it  again  and  fol- 
low its  entire  course.  The  apostolic  tradition,  as  current  in  the  Church,  did  not  do 
Ibis  ;  it  began  with  the  ministry  of  J(»hn  the  Baptist  and  tbe  baptism  of  Jesus.  It 
is  in  this  form  that  we  tiud  it  set  forth  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  summarized  in 
Peter's  preaching  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  in  Paul's  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia 
(Acts  10  :  37  et  seq.,  13  :  23  et  seq.).  The  author  here  alludes  to  the  accounts  contained 
iu  the  first  two  chapters  of  his  Gospel.  2.  After  having  gone  back  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Gospel  history,  he  endeavored  to  reproduce  as  completely  as  possible  its 
entire  course  {t^ugiv,  all  tilings,  all  the  particular  facts  which  it  includes).  Apostolic 
tradition  probably  had  a  more  or  less  fiagmentary  character  ;  tlie  apostles  not  relating 
every  time  the  whole  of  the  facts,  but  only  those  which  best  answered  to  the  circum- 
stances in  which  they  were  preaching.  This  is  expressly  said  of  St.  Peter  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Papias,  or  of  the  old  presb^'ter  on  whom  he  relied  :  izphQ  ra?  ;i;/uE/aS  enoielro 
Tui  6i6aaKa?Jas  (he  chose  each  time  the  facts  appropriate  to  the  needs  of  his  hearers). 
Important  omissions  would  easily  result  from  this  mode  of  evangelization.  By  this 
word,  nuaiv,  all  things,  Luke  probably  alludes  to  that  part  of  his  Gospel  (9  :  51, 18  :  14), 
by  which  the  tradition,  as  we  have  it  set  forth  in  our  first  two  synoptics,  is  en- 
riched with  a  great  number  of  facts  and  new  discourses,  and  with  the  account  of  a 
long  course  of  evangelization  probably  omitted,  until  Luke  gave  it,  in  the  public  nar- 
ration. 3.  He  sought  to  confer  on  the  Gospel  history  tliat  exactness  and  precision 
which  tradition  naturally  fails  to  have,  after  being  handed  about  for  some  time  from 
mouth  to  mouth.  We  know  how  quickly,  in  similar  narratives,  characteristic  trails 
are  effaced,  and  the  facts  transposed.  Diligent  and  scrupulous  care  is  required  after- 
ward to  replace  the  stones  of  the  edifice  in  their  right  position,  and  give  them  their 
exact  form  and  sharpness  of  edge.  Now  the  third  Gospel  is  distinguished,  as  we 
shall  see,  bj'  the  constant  effort  to  trace  the  continued  progressive  development  of  the 
work  of  Jesus,  to  show  the  connection  of  the  facts,  to  place  each  discourse  in  its  his- 
torical setting,  and  to  exhibit  its  exact  purport. 

By  means  of  this  information  bearing  upon  the  three  points  indicated,  the  author 
hopes  he  shall  be  qualified  to  draw  a  consecutive  picture,  reproducing  the  actual 
course  of  events  :  KaOeiF/c  ypdipai,  to  write  in  order.  It  is  impossible  in  this  connection 
to  understand  the  phrase  in  order  in  the  sense  of  a  systematic  classificaliun,  as  Ebrard 
prefers  ;  here  the  term  must  stand  for  a  chronological  order.  The  term  KaQtiF/i  is  not 
found  in  the  New  Testament  except  in  Luke. 

Ver.  4.  And  now,  what  is  the  aim  of  the  work  thus  conceived  ?  To  strengthen 
the  faith  of  Theophilus  and  his  readers  in  the  reality  of  this  extraordinary  history. 
On  Theophilus,  see  the  Introduction,  sec.  3.  The  e[)ithet  KparcaTus  is  applied  several 
times,  in  the  writings  of  Luke,  to  high  Roman  oflicials,  such  as  Felix  and  Festus  : 
Acts  23  :  2(5,  24  :  3,  26  •  23.  It  is  frequently  met  with  in  medals  of  the  time.  Luke 
wishes  to  show  his  friend  and  patron  that  he  is  not  unmindful  of  the  exalted  rank  ho 
occupies.  But  in  his  opinion,  one  mention  suffices.  He  does  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  repeat  this  somewhat  ceremonious  form  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  of  the  Acts. 
The  work  executed  on  the  plan  indicated  is  to  give  Theophilus  the  means  of  ascer. 
taining  and  verifying  (eTnyivucKeiv)  the  irrefragable  certainty  {da(t>dAitai>)  of  the 
instruction  which  he  had  already  received.  The  construction  of  this  last  phrase  has 
been  understood  iu  three  ways.     The  most  complicated  is  to  understand  a  second 


COMMENTAltY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  39 

ntpi:  Tiiv  a<y<^aleiai' ■jrepi  Tuv'/.uyuv  nepl  div  Kari^yifjiji ;  the  second  and  more  simple, 
adopted  by  Bleek,  is  lo  miiku  itfpi  dcjiend  not  on  ao(pdleiav,  but  on  Karijxrifiiir  :  t'tiv 
aoifuAeiav  Ttjv  }.6)(jv  Ttepl  uv  KaTijxifirji.  But  the  exiimple  Kartixifirjaav  'Kepi  aov  (Acta 
21  :  21).  wliicli  Bleek  quotes,  is  not  analogous  ;  for  there  the  object  of  rrept  is 
I>ersonal  :  "(hey  are  informed  of  thee."  The  simplest  construction  is  this.  -?> 
dd^dAftavTrcpl  r<i»' P-Jyui"  oils  KflTvif'/O^?,  certitude  touching  the  instruct! on  ■which  . 
Comp.  for  this  form  Ka7i]xda6ai  n.  Ads  28  :  25  ;  Gal.  G  :  G.  The  term  Karr^xeiv, 
to  cause  a  sound  to  penetrate  into  the  ears,  and  thereby  also  a  fact,  an  idea,  into  the 
mind,  may  simply  mean  tiiat  intelligence  of  the  great  events  ot^vhich  Luke  spctdis 
had  reached  Theopliilus  by  public  report  (Acts  21  :  21.  24)  ;  or  it  may  denole  in- 
stt action  properly  so  called,  as  Rom.  2  :  18  ;  Acts  18  :  2.j,  Gal.  G  :  G  ;  neilher  tiie 
expressions  nor  the  context  appear  to  me  to  offer  sutttcient  reasons  to  decide  which. 
Perhaps  the  truth  lies  between  these  two  extreme  opinions.  Theophilus  might  have 
talked  with  Christian  evangelists  without  receiving  such  catechetical  instruction,  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  as  was  often  given  them  when  a  church  was  founded 
(Thiersch,  "  Ycrsuch,"  p.  122  et  seq.) ;  and  then  have  applied  to  Luke  with  a  view 
to  obtain  through  his  labors  something  more  complete.  The  word  aa(pu?.fiay,  is 
relegated  to  the  end,  to  express  with  greater  force  the  idea  of  the  irrefragable  cer- 
tainty of  the  facts  of  the  Gospel. 

It  is  a  very  nice  question  whether  the  term  A.dyoi,  which  we  have  translated 
imtruction,  heie  refers  solely  to  the  historical  contents  of  the  Gospel,  or  also  to  the 
religious  meaning  of  the  facts,  as  that  comes  out  of  the  subsequent  narrative.  In  the 
former  case,  Luke  would  simply  mean  that  the  certainty  of  each  particular  fact  was 
established  by  its  relation  to  thewhole,  which  could  not  well  be  invented.  An  cxtraor- 
dinarj'-  fact,  which,  piesented  sepaiately,  appeals  impossible,  becomes  natural  and 
rati.)nal  when  it  takes  its  place  in  a  well-certitied  sequence  of  facts  to  which  it 
belongs.*  In  strictness,  this  meaning  might  be  sufficient.  But  when  we  try  to 
identify  ourselves  cf)mpletely  with  the  author's  mind,  do  we  nut  see,  in  this  instruc-  . 
tion  of  which  he  speaks,  something  more  than  a  simple  n-irrative  of  facts  ?  Does 
not  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  15  :  1-4  show  that,  in  apostolic  instruction,  religious  com- 
ment was  inseparable  from  the  historical  text  ?  Was  it  not  wi!n  a  view  lo  faith  that 
facts  were  related  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  ?  and  does  not  faith,  in  order  to 
appropriate  them,  require  an  exposition  of  their  meaning  and  importance?  The 
instruction  already  received  by  Theophilus  refers,  then,  without  doubt  to  the  Gospel 
lustory,  but  not  as  isolated  from  its  religious  interpretation  ;  and  since  we  have  to  do 
here  with  a  reader  belonging  to  a  circle  of  Christians  of  Iieatheu  oriiriu,  the  significa- 
tion given  to  this  history  could  be  none  other  than  that  twofold  principle  of  the  uni- 
versality and  free  grace  of  salvation  which  constituted  the  sul)stance  of  what  Paul 
called  his  Gospel.  Luke's  object,  then,  was  to  relate  the  Christian  fact  in  such  a  way 
as  to  show  that,  from  its  very  starting-point,  the  work  and  preaching  of  Jesus  Him- 
self had  had  uo  other  meaning.     This  was   the  only  waj--  of  making  evangelical. 

*  The  Catholic  missionaries,  TIuc  and  Gabet.  in  their  "  Travels  in  Tartary"  (vol. 
ii.  p.  i;3G),  relate  as  follows:  "  We  hud  adojited  [in  regard  to  tiie  Buddhist  priests 
am>,ng  whom  they  lived]  an  entirely  historical  mode  of  teaching.  .  .  .  Proper 
names  and  precise  dates  made  much  more  impression  on  tlieni  than  the  most  logicil 
arguments.  .  .  .  The  close  connection  which  lin-y  remarked  in  the  hi.story  of 
thf^  Old  and  New  Testaments  was.  in  their  view,  a  deiuousttatiou."     Is  nut  Ihutths 


40  COMMENTARY   OX   ST.   LUKE. 

instruction,  as  formulated  by  St.  Paul,  rest  on  an  immovable  basis.  As  a  conse- 
quence, this  npoHlle  ceased  to  appear  an  innovator,  and  became  tlie  faithful  expositor 
of  tlic  teaching  of  Jesus.  To  write  a  Gospel  with  this  view  was  to  introduce  benesith 
the  vast  ecclesiastical  edifice  raised  by  Paul,  the  only  foundalion  which  could  in  the 
end  prevent  it  from  falling.  For  whatever  there  is  iu  the  Chuich  that  does  not 
emanate  from  Jesus,  holds  a  usurped  and  consequently  a  transitory  place.  Tins 
Avouid  he  true  even  of  the  spiritualism  of  St.  Paul,  if  it  did  not  proceed  from  Jesus 
Christ.  Ceitaiuly  it  does  not  therefore  follow,  that  the  acts  and  words  of  Jesus 
Avhich  Lulie  relates,  and  iu  which  the  universalist  *  tendency  of  the  Gospel  is  mani- 
fested, were  invented  or  modified  by  him  in  the  interest  of  this  tendency.  Is  it  not 
important  for  him,  on  the  contrary,  to  prove  to  his  readers  that  this  tendency  was  not 
infused  into  the  Gospel  by  Paul,  but  is  u  legitimate  deduction  from  the  work  and 
leaching  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  The  essential  truth  of  this  claim  will  be  placed  beyond  all 
suspicion  when  we  come  to  prove,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  author  has  in  no  way 
tried  to  mutilate  the  narrative  by  suppressing  those  facts  which  might  yield  a  differ- 
ent tenden(;y  from  that  which  he  desired  to  justify  ;  on  the  other,  that  the  tendency 
which  he  favors  is  inseparable  from  the  cjurse  of  the  facts  themselves. 

If  we  have  correctly  apprehended  the  meaning  of  the  last  words  of  the  prologue, 
we  must  expect  to  find  in  the  third  Gospel  the  counterpart  of  the  first.  As  that  is 
"  A  Treatise  on  the  right  of  Jesus  to  the  "Messianic  sovereignty  of  Israel,"  this  is  "  A 
Treatisa  on  the  right  of  the  heathen  to  share  in  the  Messianic  kingdom  founded  by 
Jesus."  In  regard  to  the  earliest  vrritings  ou  the  subject  of  the  Gospel  history,  we 
may  draw  from  this  preface  four  important  results  :  1.  The  common  source  from 
which  the  earliest  written  narratives  of  the  history  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  proceeded 
was  the  oral  testimony  of  the  apostles — the  £5«5a^7  ruv  a.Troar6'>.uv,  which  is  spoken  of 
in  Acts  2  :  43  a  the  daily  food  dispensed  by  them  to  the  rising  Church.  2.  The  work 
of  committing  this  apostolic  tradition  to  writing  began  early,  not  later  than  the  period 
of  transition  from  the  first  to  the  second  Christian  generation  ;  and  it  was  attempted 
b}''  numerous  authors  at  the  same  time.  Nothmg  in  the  text  of  Luke  authorizes  us 
to  think,  with  Gieseler,  that  this  was  done  only  among  the  Greeks.  From  the  earli- 
est times,  the  art  of  writing  prevailed  among  the  Jews  ;  children  even  were  not  igno- 
rant cf  it  (Judg.  8  :  14).  3.  In  composing  his  Gospel  Luke  possessed  the  apostolic 
tradition,  not  merelj'  in  the  oral  form  in  which  it  circulated  iu  the  churches,  but  also 
reduced  to  writing  in  a  considerable  number  of  these  earl^'  works  ;  and  these  consti- 
tiited  two  distinct  sources.  4.  But  he  did  not  content  himself  with  these  two  means 
of  information  ;  he  made  use,  in  addition,  of  personal  investigations  designed  to  com- 
plete, correct,  and  arrange  the  materials  which  he  derived  from  these  two  sources. 

Having  obtained  these  definite  results,  it  only  remains  to  see  whether  they  contain 
(he  elements  required  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  our  synoptics, 
and  of  the  composition  of  our  Gospel  in  particular.  We  shall  examine  them  for  this 
purpose  at  the  conclusion  of  the  work. 

*  It  is  hardly  needful  to  remind  readers  that  the  "  universalist"  of  Godet  i=!  not  a 
denominational  title,  Init  a  rpference  to  the  offer  of  the  (lOspel  by  Paul  and  others  to 
all  men,  as  distinguished  from  the  narrowness  of  Judaizing  teachers. — J.  H. 


FlllST  PAUT. 


THE  NAERATIVES   OF   THE  INFANCY. 

Chap.  1  :  5,  2  :  53. 

Both  the  first  and  the  third  Gospel  open  with  a  cycle  of  narratives  relating  to  the 
bifth  and  cliildliood  of  Jesus.  These  narratives  do  nut  appear  tu  have  formed  [larl  of 
the  tiadition  bequeathed  to  the  Cliureh  by  the  apostles  (ver.  2).  At  least,  neither  tlio 
Gospel  of  Mark,  the  document  which  appears  to  con espond  must  nearly  with  the  type 
of  the  priniijive  preaching,  nor  tlie  oldest  example  we  have  of  this  early  preaching, 
Peter's  discourse  in  I  lie  house  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10  :  37-48),  go  fuither  back  than  the 
ministry  of  John  tlie  Baptist  and  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  reason,  doubtless,  for 
this  is,  that  edification  was  the  sole  aim  of  apostolic  preaching.  It  wa?  intended  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  tlie  faith  ;  and  in  order  to  do  this,  the  ap jstles  had  only  to  tes- 
tify concerning  what  they  had  themselves  seen  and  heard  dating  the  time  the}'  had 
been  with  .Jesus  (John  15  :  27  ;  Acts  1  -.21.  22). 

But  these  facts  witli  which  their  preaching  commenced  supposed  antecedent  cir 
cunistances.  Actual  events  of  such  an  extianrdinary  ualure  could  not  Iiave  happened 
without  preparation.  This  Jesus, wliom  Mark  himself  designates  fiom  the  outset  (1  : 1) 
as  the  Son  of  God,  coidd  not  have  fallen  from  heaven  as  a  lull-grown  man  of  thirty 
years  of  age.  Just  as  a  botanist,  when  he  admires  a  new  flower,  will  not  rest  until 
he  has  dug  it  up  by  the  roots,  while  an  ordinary  observer  will  be  satisfied  with  seeing 
its  blossom  ;  so  among  believers,  among  the  Greeks  especirdly,  there  must  have  been 
thoughtful  minds— Luke  and  Theophilus  are  representatives  of  such— who  felt  the 
need  of  supplying  what  the  narratives  of  the  official  witnesses  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  were  deficient  in  respecting  the  origin  of  this  history. 

Tile  historical  interest  itself  awakened  by  faith  must  have  tended  to  dissipate  the 
obscurity  which  enveloped  the  first  appearance  of  a  being  so  exceptional  as  He  who 
was  the  subject  of  the  evangelical  tradition.  In  proportion  as  the  first  enthusiasm  of 
faith  gave  place,  at  the  transition  period  between  the  first  and  the  second  generation 
of  Christians,  to  careful  reflection,  this  need  would  be  felt  with  growing  intensity. 
Luke  felt  constrained  to  satisfy  it  in  his  first  two  chapters.  It  is  evident  that  the 
contents  of  Wub  "  Gospel  of  the  Infancy"  proceed  neither  from  apostolic  tradition 
(ver.  2),  nor  from  any  of  the  numerous  writings  to  which  allusion  is  made  (ver.  1), 
but  that  they  a:e  deiived  from  special  information  which  Luke  had  obtained.  It  is 
to  these  two  chapters  especially  that  Luke  alludes  in  the  thiid  verse  of  the  prologue 
(uvu<iEv,from  the  beginning). 

A  similar  need  must  have  been  felt,  probably  at  the  same  time,  in  the  .Tewish- 
Christian  world  ;  only  it  arose  out  of  another  priuciple.     There  was  no  demand  there 


43  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKI. 

for  the  satisfaction  of  the  historic  sense.  In  those  circles,  interest  in  the  Messianic 
question  prevailed  over  all  others.  They  wanted  to  know  whelher  from  the  begin- 
ning the  child,  as  well  as  afterAvard  the  grown  man,  had  not  been  divinely  pointed 
out  as  the  Messiah.  Tlie  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew  are  plainly  intended  to 
meet  this  need. 

In  this  way  we  obtain  a  natural  explanation  of  the  extension  of  the  Gospel  l)istory 
to  the  flist  commencement  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  just  in  those  different  directions 
•which  are  to  l)e  observed  in  our  twu  Gospels. 

But  does  not  this  imply  consequences  somewhat  unfavorable  to  the  truth  of  the 
narratives  comprised  in  these  two  cycles,  Luke  1-3  and  Matt.  1-2?  It  is  admit- 
ted :  1.  That  these  narratives  of  the  infancy  lack  the  guarantee  of  apostolic  testimony. 
2.  That  the  wants  which  we  have  pointed  out  might  easily  call  into  activity  the 
Christian  imagination,  and,  in  the  absence  of  positive  histoiy,  seek  their  satislaclinn 
in  legend.  Tiiese  narratives  are  actually  regarded  m  this  light,  ni.t  only  by  Strauss 
or  Baur,  but  even  by  such  men  as  Meyer,  Weizsacker,  and  Keim,  who  do  not  gener- 
allj'  avow  themselves  pailisans  of  the  mythical  interpretation.  AVhat  in  their  view 
renders  these  narratives  suspicious  is  their  poetical  character,  and  the  marvels  with 
which  they  abound  (a  great  unmbur  of  angelic  appearances  and  of  prophetic  songs) 
the  complete  silence  of  the  other  New  Testament  writings  respecting  the  miraculous 
birth  (there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  Paul,  or  even  in  John)  ;  certain  facts  of  the  subse- 
quent history  (the  unbeliei  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus  and  of  his  own  mother)  which 
appear  incompatible  with  the  miraculous  circumstances  of  this  birth  ;  contradictions 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  on  several  important  points  ;  and  lastly,  historical 
errors  in  Luke's  narrative,  which  may  be  proved  by  comparing  it  with  the  facts  of 
Jewish  and  Roman  history. 

We  can  only  examine  these  various  reasons  as  we  pursue  in  detail  the  study  of 
the  text.  As  to  the  way  in  Avhich  the  wants  we  have  indicated  were  satisfied,  we 
would  observe  :  1.  Tliat  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  since  the  matter  in  question  was 
regarded  as  sacred  both  by  the  writers  and  the  Church,  that  tlie  more  simple  and 
reverential  process  of  historical  investigation  would  be  employed  before  having 
recourse  to  fiction.  It  is  only  at  a  later  stage,  when  the  results  obtained  by  this 
means  are  no  longer  sufficient  to  satisfy  curiosity  and  a  corrupted  faith,  that  inven- 
tion comes  in  to  the  aid  of  history.  The  apocryphal  Gospels,  which  made  their 
api)earance  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  fir-st  century,  indicate  the  time  when  this  change 
was  in  operation.  Luke,  if  vve  may  trust  his  preface,  belongs  lo  the  fir'st  period,  that 
of  investigation.  2.  It  is  evident  that  Luke  himself,  on  the  authority  of  information 
which  he  had  obtained,  believed  in  the  reality  of  tlie  facts  wdiicli  he  relates  in  his  first 
two  chapters  as  firirdy  as  in  that  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  history.  Ilis  naiTative 
bears  numerous  maiks  of  its  strictly  historical  character  :  the  course  of  Abia,  the  cil^ 
of  Galilee  named  Nazareth,  the  city  of  the  hill-country  of  Juda,  where  dwelt  tlm 
parents  of  John  the  Baptist, the  census  of  Cyrenius,  the  eighty-four  years'  widowhood 
of  Anna  the  prophetess,  the  physical  and  moral  growth  of  Jesus  as  a  child  and  young 
man,  his  return  to  Nazareth  and  settlement  there — all  these  details  leave  us  no  room 
to  doubt  the  completely  historical  sense  which  the  author  liimself  attached  to  these 
narratives.  If,  then,  this  part  lacks  the  authority  of  apostolic  testimony,  it  is  guar- 
anteed by  the  religious  convictions  of  the  author,  and  by  his  personal  assurance  of 
the  value  of  the  oral  or  written  sources  whence  he  derived  his  knowledge  of  these 
facts. 


CiiAi>.   I.  :  0-25.  43 

The  Gospel  of  tlie  Infancy  in  Lnke  comprises  seven  narnitivcs  : 

1.  The  aunouncemeut  (if  the  birth  of  the  foieruuiier,  1  :  5-25  ;  2.  Tiic  anuounce- 
ment  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  1  : 2()-;j8  ;  '6.  The  visit  of  Maty  to  Elizubetli,  1  :  U'J-50. 
Tiiese  tliree  narratives  form  tlie  first  cycle. 

4.  The  birth  of  the  foreiunuer,  1  :  57-80  ;  5.  The  birth  of  Jesus,  2  :  1-20  ;  G.  Tlic 
(•ircunu'isii)n  and  presentation  of  Jesus,  2  :  21-40.  These  three  uanalives  form  u 
secnml  cycle. 

T.  The  first  journey  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  2  :  41-52.  This  seventh  nairative  is, 
as  It  were,  the  crown  ot  the  two  preceding  cycles. 

FIKST   NAURATIVE. — CII.VP.    1  :  5-25. 

Annovnctvient  of  the  Birth  of  John  the  Baptist. 

The  first  words  of  the  narrative  bring  us  back  from  the  midst  of  Greece,  whither 
we  were  trauspnited  by  the  prologue,  into  a  ccnipletely  Jewish  woi  Id.  The  very  style 
cliauges  its  ciiaracler.  From  the  fiflli  verse  it  is  so  saturated  with  Aramai.<ms  that  the 
contrast  with  tiie  four  preceding  verses  resulting  from  it  obliges  us  to  admit,  eitiier  that 
the  author  artificially  modifies  his  language  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  his  subject,  and  so 
produces  an  imitation — a  refinement  of  method  scarcely  probable — or  that  he  is  dealing 
witli  ancient  documents,  tlie  Aramaic  coloring  of  which  he  endeavors  to  pieserve  as 
faithfully  as  possible.  Tliis second  supposition  alone  ajipears  admissible.  But  it  may 
assume  two  forms.  Either  the  author  simply  copies  a  Grtek  document  which  already 
had  tlie  Hebraistic  character  with  whicli  we  are  struck  ;  or  the  document  in  liis  hands 
is  in  the  Aramean  tongue,  and  he  translates  it  into  Greek.  Bleek  maintains  the  first 
viow.  We  shall  examine,  at  the  seventy-eighth  verse  of  chap.  1,  his  principal  proof. 
As  all  the  most  characteristic  peculiarities  of  Luke's  style  are  found  in  these  two 
chanters,  the  second  alternative  is  by  this  circumstance  rendered  more  probable.  But 
in  this  case  it  is  asked.  Why  Luke,  tianslating  from  the  Aramean,  did  not  reproduce 
his  document  in  purer  Greek,  as  he  was  perfectly  competent  to  do  ;  comp.  vers.  1-4 
And  he  is  blamed  for  his  servility  as  a  translator.  It  is  exactly  as  if  ^I.  de  Barante 
were  blamed  for  preserving  with  all  possible  fidelity,  in  his  history  of  the  Dukes  of 
I5iirgundy,  the  style  of  the  ancient  chronicles  from  which  the  contents  of  his  narra- 
tive are  drawn  ;  or  M.  Augustin  Thierry,  for  "  having  kept  as  near  as  he  possibly 
could  to  the  language  of  the  ancient  historians."*  So  far  from  deserving  the  blame 
of  his  critics,  Luke  has  shown  himself  a  man  of  exquisite  taste,  in  that  he  has  pre- 
served throughout  his  narrative  all  the  flavor  of  the  documents  he  uses,  and  has 
a.-ailed  himself  of  the  incomparable  fiexibility  of  the  Greek  language  to  reproduce  ia 
all  their  purity  of  substance  and  form,  and  give,  ^s  it  were,  a  tracing  of  the  precious 
documents  which  had  fallen  into  his  hands. 

This  first  narrative  describes  :  1.  The  trial  of  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth  (vers.  5-7). 
2.  The  promise  of  delivciance  (vers.  8-22).  '6.  The  accomplishment  of  this  promise 
(vers.  23-25). 

1.  The  Trial :  \<?r?,  5-7. f  For 400  years  direct  commnnications  between  the  Lord 
and  his  people  had  ceased      To  the  knglhened  seed-time  of  the  patriarchal,  Mosaic, 

*  '^Ilisloire  de  la  Cnuquete  d'Angleterre."  etc.,  Introd.  p.  9. 

f  Ver  5.  i^.  B.  0.  D.  L.  X.  Z.  and  some  Mim. ,  ywri  nv-o).  instead  of  77  ywij  nvrov,  the 
reading  of  T.  K.  ir^  .Mjj.  ibe  :\Inn.  Syr.  Iip'-^ri.,,,.  y^.r.  Q.  m.  B.  C.  X.,  evuvtiov,  in- 
stead of  Evu)Kioi',  the  reading  of  T.  K.  18  J\ljj.  the  Muu. 


44  COMMKXTAKV    OX    ST.    Ll'KK. 

:in(l  pro])l)Ctic  periods,  Iind  succeeded  a  season  of  liarvest.  A  fresh  seed-time,  the 
second  and  hist  phase  of  diviue  revehition,  was  about  to  open  ;  this  time  God  wouhl 
ackiress  Himself  to  liie  wiiolo  woild.  But  wlien  God  begins  a  new  worli,  lie  does  not 
scornfully  breuli  with  the  instrument  by  which  tlie  past  work  lias  been  effected.  As 
it  is  from  the  seclusion  of  a  convent  that  in  the  middle  ages  lie  will  take  the  refoimcr 
of  the  Church,  so  it  is  from  the  luins  of  an  Israelitish  priest  that  he  now  causes  to 
come  forth  the  man  who  is  to  introduce  the  world  to  the  renovation  prepared  for  it. 
The  temp'ie  itself,  the  centre  of  the  theocracy,  becomes  the  cradle  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, of  the  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  There  is,  then,  a  diviue  suitability  in  the 
choice  both  of  the  actors  and  theatre  of  the  scene  which  is  about  to  take  place. 

The  days  of  Herod  (ver.  5)  designate  the  time  of  this  prince's  reign.  This  fact 
agrees  with  Matt.  2  :1  et  seq.,  wheie  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  also  placed  in  the  reign  of 
Ilcrod.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Matt.  3  :  19  that  this  birth  happened  quite  at  the 
end  of  this  reign.  According  to  Josephus,  the  death  of  Herod  must  have  taken  place 
in  the  spring  of  th?  year  750  u.c.  Jesus,  therefore,  must  have  been  l)orn  at  latest  in 
749,  or  quite  at  the  beginning  of  750.  It  follows  from  this,  that  in  the  fifth  century 
our  era  was  fixed  at  least  four  years  too  late. 

The  title  of  King  of  Judea  had  been  decreed  to  Herod  by  the  Senate  on  the 
recommendation  of  Antony  and  Oclavius.  The  course  of  Abia  was  the  eighteeutii 
of  the  twenty-four  courses  or  ephemeriie  into  which,  from  David's  time,  the  college 
of  priests  had  been  divided  (1  Chron.  24  :  10).  Each  of  tbese  classes  did  duty  for 
eight  days,  from  one  Sabbath  to  another,  once  every  six  months  (2  Kings  11  :  9). 
'Eo/i/iiepia,  properly  daily  service  ;  thence  :  in  rotation,  returning  on  a  fixed  da)' ; 
thence  :  lastly,  the  group  of  persons  subject  to  this  rotation.  As  we  know  tluit  the 
day  on  which  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  destroved  was  the  ninth  of  the  fifth  month 
of  the  year  823  u.c,  that  is  to  say,  the  4th  of  August  of  the  year  70  of  our  era  ;  and 
as,  according  to  the  Talmud,  it  was  the  first  ephemeiia  which  was  on  duty  that  day, 
we  may  reclion,  calculating  backward,  that  in  the  year  which  must  Iiave  preceded  that 
in  which  Jesus  was  burn,  that  is  to  say,  probal)ly  in  748,  the  ophemeria  of  Abia  was 
on  duty  in  the  week  from  the  17th  to  the  2od  of  April,  and  in  that  from  the  3d  to  the 
91  h  of  October.  Therefore  John  the  Baptist  would  be  born  nine  months  after  one  of 
these  two  dates,  and  Jesus  six  months  later,  consequently  in  the  month  of  July,  749. 
or  in  the  month  of  January,  750.*  In  this  calculation,  however,  of  the  time  of  year 
to  which  the  births  of  John  and  Jesus  should  be  assigned,  everything  depends  on  the 
determination  of  the  year  of  the  bitlh  of  Jesus.  But  this  is  a  question  whioh  is  not 
yet  decided  with  any  certainty.  ^ 

The  Hebraistic  coloring  of  the  style  is  seen  particuhirly  :  1st,  in  the  expression 
h  rals  ijiiqmic  (iQin)  ;  2dly,  in  the  connection  of  propositions  by  means  of  the  particle 
nal,  instead  of  the  Greek  syntactical  construction  by  means  of  relative  pronouns  and 
conjunctions  ;  3dly,  in  the  employment  of  the  verb  kysvero  in  the  sense  of  ij'^^y  The 
subject  of  eyivero  is  not,  as  is  generally  thought,  the  word  iepev?,  but  rather  the  verb 
fjv,  which  must  l)e  understood  in  the  three  following  propositions  (comp.  ver.  8, 
kyevETo  iAaxe).  The  Alex,  reading,  yvvr)  avru,  which  is  more  uncouth  and  Hebraistic 
than  Tj  yvjf]  avrov,  is  probably  the  true  reading.  The  term  lighteous  (ver.  G)  indicates 
general  confoimity  of  conduct  to  the  diviue  precepts;  this  quality  does  not  abso- 
lutely exclude  sin  (comp.  vers.  18-20).     It  simply  supposes  that  the  man  humbly 

*  "  "VVieseler,  Chronolog.  Synopsis  der  vier  Evang."  pp.  141-145. 


cilAP.   1.  :  ii-12.  45 

uckuowledfres  his  sin,  strives  to  make  iimciuls  for  it,  anrl,  aided  from  on  high,  strug- 
gles agiiitisl  it  Tlie  Byz.  reading  tv6niov,in  (he  presence,  under  the  eyen  of,  appeals 
preferiilde  to  tlie  Alexaiidi  i:in  reading  ivavriov,  in  the  face  of,  before.  Gud  and  man 
cannot  be  represented  as  being  face  to  face  iu  this  passage,  wliere  God's  judgment  on 
man  is  iu  question  (see  at  ver.  8).  'Eywn'iov  answers  toij^S,  andexpresses  tlie  inward 
reality  of  this  righteousness.  Tlie  two  terms  ivroXai  and  ^uaiunaTa,  coiamandntentu 
and  ordinances,  Inive  been  distinguished  in  different  ways.  The  former  appears  to 
U3  to  refer  to  the  more  general  principles  of  tlie  moral  law — to  the  Decalogue,  for 
exaoiple  ;  the  latter,  to  the  multitude  of  particular  Levitical  ordinances.  AiKaiuua 
properly  is,  what  God  has  declared  righteous.  As  the  expression  before  God  brings 
out  the  inward  truth  of  this  righteousness,  so  the  following,  walking  in  .  .  .  in- 
dicates its  perfect  fidelity  in  practice.  The  term  blameless  no  more  excludes  sin 
here  than  Phil.  3  :  6.  The  well-known  description  in  Rom.  7  explains  the  sense  in 
■which  this  word  must  be  taken.  The  germ  of  concupiscence  may  exist  iu  the  heart, 
even  under  the  covering  of  the  most  complete  external  obedience. 

Ver.  7.  In  the  heart  of  this  truly  theocratic  family,  so  worthy  of  the  divine  bless- 
ing, a  grievous  want  was  felt.  To  have  no  children  was  a  trial  the  more  deeply  felt 
in  Israel,  that  barrenness  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  mark  of  divine  displeasure, 
according  to  Gen.  2.  KaOon  does  not  .signify  because  that  exactly,  but  in  accordance 
with  this,  that.  It  is  cue  of  those  terms  which,  in  the  Xew  Testament,  only  occur 
in  Luke's  writings  (19:9,  and  four  times  in  the  Acts).  If.  therefore,  as  Bleek 
thinks,  Luke  had  found  these  narratives  already  composed  in  Greek,  he  must  never- 
theless admit  that  he  has  modified  their  style.  The  last  proposition  cannot,  it 
appears,  depend  on  koOoti,  seeing  that ;  for  it  would  not  be  logical  to  say,  "  They  had 
no  children  .  .  .  seeing  that  tiiey  were  both  well  stricken  in  years. "  So,  many 
make  these  last  words  an  independent  sentence.  The  position,  however,  of  the  verb 
linav  at  the  end.  tends  rather  to  make  this  phrase  depend  on  KaOon.  To  do  this,  it 
sulfices  to  supply  a  thought  :  They  had  no  children,  and  they  retained  but  little  hope 
of  having  any,  seeing  that  .  .  ."  The  expression  npuSedriKOTEi  iv  mii  y/iipaic 
avTuv  is  purely  Hebraistic  (Gen.  18  :  11,  24  :  1  ;  Josh.  13  :  1  ;  1  Kings  1  :  1 — C''^"''^ 

2.  T'le  promise  of  deliverance  :  vers.  8-22.  This  portion  comprises  :  1.  vers.  8-17, 
The  promise  itself  ;  2.  veis.  18-22,  Tlie  manner  in  which  it  was  received. 

1.  The  narrative  of  the  promise  includes  .  the  appeaiance  (vers.  8-12),  and  the 
message  (vers.  13-17),  of  the  angel. 

The  appearance  of  the  angel  :  vers.  8-12.*  The  incen.5e  had  to  be  offered,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  (Ex.  30  :  7,  8),  every  morning  and  evening.  There  was  public  pr;u'er 
three  times  adav  :  at  nine  in  the  morning  (Acts  2  :  15  ?),  at  noon  (Acts  10  :  9),  and  at 
three  in  the  afternoon  (Acts  3  :  1,  10  :  30.)  The  first  and  last  of  these  acts  of  pui)!ic 
prayer  coincided  with  the  offering  of  incense  (Jos.  Auliq.  xiv.  4.  3).  In  the  con- 
struction kyrvETo  i'axe,  the  subject  of  the  fir.^t  ver!)  is  the  act  indicated  by  tlie  second. 
'Evavrt,  in  the  face  of,  before,  is  suitable  here  ;  for  the  ofliciating  piiest  enacts  a  part 
in  the  front  of  the  Divinity.  The  words,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  priest's 
office  (ver,  8),  ma.v  be  referred  either  to  the  established  rotation  of  tlie  courses 
(ver.    8),   or    to    the    use    of     the    lot    with    a    view  to  the    assignment    of    each 

*  Ver.  8.  Tlie  ]\rnn.  vary  between  tvavri  and  Evavnov.  Ver.  10,  i*.  B.  E.  and  13 
Mjj.  put  Tov  ?.aov  between  yv  and  -poaevxofiefov ;  while  the  T.  R.,  with  A.  C.  D.  K. 
n.,  put  it  before  yv. 


40  COMMENTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

day's  functious.  lu  both  cases,  the  extraordiiiarj'  use  of  the  lot  woulJ  be  worthy  of 
mention.  The  leference  of  these  words  to  what  precedes  appears  to  us  more  natural  ; 
we  regard  them  as  a  simple  amplification  of  iv  r?)  rd^ei:  "the  order  of  his  course 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  priest's  office."  On  the  use  of  the  lot  Oosterzce 
rightly  observes  that  it  proceeded  from  this,  that  nothing  in  the  service  of  the  sanctu- 
ary was  to  be  left  to  man's  arbitrary  decision.  The  function  of  offering  incense, 
wiiich  gave  the  priest  the  right  to  enter  the  holy  platje,  was  regarded  as  tlie  most 
honorable  of  all.  Further,  according  to  the  Talmud,  the  priest  who  had  obtained  it 
was  not  permitted  to  draw  the  lot  a  second  time  in  the  same  week.  ElasAB^v,  having 
entered  ;  there  was  the  honor  !  This  fact  was  at  the  same  time  the  condition  of  the 
whole  scene  that  followed.  And  that  is  ceitainly  the  reason  why  this  detail,  which 
is  correctly  understood  by  itself,  is  so  particularly  mentioned.  Meyer  and  Bleek,  nut 
apprehending  this  design,  find  here  an  inaccuracy  of  expression,  and  maintain  that 
with  the  infinitive  Qv/xidaai  the  author  passes  by  anticipation  from  the  notion  of  the 
fact  to  its  historical  realization.  This  is  unnecessary  ;  elae/Suv  is  a  pluperfect  in 
reference  to  Ov/ndaai :  "It  fell  to  him  to  offer  incense  after  having  entered."  The 
term  vnui,  temple,  designates  the  buildings  properly  so  called,  in  opposition  to  the 
different  courts  ;  and  the  complement  Kvpiov,  o/iAe  iorc?,  expresses  its  character  in 
virtue  of  which  the  Lord  was  about  to  manifest  Himself  in  this  house. 

The  lOlh  verse  mentions  a  circumstance  which  brings  out  the  solemnity  of  the 
time,  as  the  preceding  circumstance  brouglit  out  the  solemnity  of  the  place.  The 
prayer  of  the  people  assembled  in  the  court  accompanied  the  offering  of  incense. 
There  was  a  close  connection  between  these  two  acts.  The  one  was  the  typical,  ideal, 
and  therefore  perfectly  pure  prayer  ;  the  other  the  real  i)rayer,  which  was  inevitably  im- 
perfect and  defiled.  The  former  covered  the  latter  with  its  sanctity  ;  the  latter  com- 
municated to  the  former  its  reality  and  life.  Thus  they  were  the  complement  of 
each  other.  Ilence  their  obligatory  simultaneousuess  and  their  mutual  connection 
are  forcibly  expressed  by  the  dative  ry  upa.  The  reading  which  puts  tov  XaoC  be- 
tween 7ji>  and  npoaevxo/ievuv  expresses  better  the  essential  idea  of  the  proposition 
contained  in  this  participle. 

Ver.  11.  Here,  with  the  appearance  of  the  angel,  begins  the  marvellous  character 
of  the  story  which  lays  it  open  to  the  suspicion  of  criticism.  And  if,  indeed,  the 
Christian  dispensation  were  nothing  more  than  the  natural  development  of  the  human 
consciousness  advancing  by  its  own  laws,  we  should  necessarily  and  unhesilaliugly 
reject  as  ficticious  this  su[)ernatural  element,  and  at  the  same  time  everything  else  in 
the  Gospel  of  a  similar  character.  Bat  if  Christianity  was  an  entirely  new  beginning 
(Verny)  in  history,  the  second  and  final  creation  of  man,  it  was  natural  that  an  inter- 
position on  so  grand  a  scale  should  be  accompanied  by  a  series  of  particular  interposi- 
tions. It  was  even  necessary.  For  how  were  the  representatives  of  the  ancient 
order  of  things,  who  had  to  co-operate  in  the  new  work,  to  be  initiated  into  it,  and 
their  attachment  won  to  it,  except  by  this  means  ?  According  to  the  Scripture,  we 
are  surrounded  by  angels  (2  Kings  6  :  17  ;  Ps.  34  :  8),  whom  God  employs  to  watch 
over  us  ;  but  in  our  ordinary  condition  we  want  the  sense  necessary  to  perceive  their 
presence.  For  that,  a  condition  of  peculiar  receptivity  is  required.  This  condition 
existed  in  Zacharias  at  this  time.  It  had  been  created  in  him  by  the  solemnity  of  the 
place,  by  the  sacredness  of  the  function  he  was  about  to  perform,  by  his  lively  sym- 
pathy with  all  this  people  who  were  imploring  Heaven  for  national  deliverance,  and, 
last  of  all,  bj'  the  experience  of  his  own  domestic  trial,  the  feeling  of  which  was  tt>  be 


ciiAi'.    I.  :  lo-lT.  47 

paiufiilly  revived  by  the  favur  about  to  be  shown  him.  Under  the  influence  of  all 
these  circunstances  combined,  that  internal  sense  which  puts  miin  in  contact  with 
tlie  higher  world  was  awakened  in  him.  But  the  necessity  of  this  inward  predispo- 
sition in  no  way  proves  that  the  vision  of  Zacharias  was  merely  the  result  of  a  high 
state  of  moral  excitement.  Several  particulars  in  the  narrative  make  tliis  explanation 
inadmissible,  particularly  these  two  :  the  ditliculty  with  which  Zacharias  puts  faith 
in  the  promise  made  to  him,  and  tlie  physical  chastisement  which  is  inflicted  on  him 
for  his  unbelief.  These  facts,  in  any  case,  render  a  simple  psychological  explanation 
impossible,  anil  oblige  the  denier  of  the  objectivity  of  the  appearance  to  throw  him- 
self upon  the  mythical  interpretation.  The  term  ayyeAoi  Kvplov,  angel  of  the  Lord,  may 
be  regavdeil  as  a  kind  of  proper  name,  and  we  may  translate  the  angel  of  the  Jm/'iI, 
uotwithstauding  the  absence  of  the  article.  But  since,  when  once  this  personage  is 
inlroduceil,  the  word  angel  is  preceded  by  the  article  (ver.  13),  it  is  more  natural  to 
translate  here  an  angtl.  Tlie  entrance  to  the  temple  facing  the  east,  Zacharias,  on 
euleriug,  had  on  his  right  the  table  of  shew-bread,  placed  on  the  north  side  ;  on  his 
left  the  candelabrum,  placed  on  the  south  side  ;  and  before  him  the  golden  altar, 
■which  occupied  the  end  of  the  holy  place,  in  front  of  the  veil  that  hung  between  this 
liart  ot  the  sanctuary  and  the  Holy  of  Holies.  The  expression  on  the  right  side  of  the 
altar,  must  be  explained  according  to  the  point  of  view  of  Zacharias  :  the  angel  stood, 
tiierefore,  between  the  altar  anil  the  shewbread  table.  The  fear  of  Zachaiias  pro- 
ceeds from  tilt;  consciousness  of  sin,  which  is  immediately  awakened  in  the  human 
miud  when  a  supernatural  manifestation  puts  it  in  direct  contact  with  the  divine 
world.  The  expression  oo/ioc  iiriiTEaev  is  a  Hebraism  (Gen.  15  :  13).  Was  it  morning 
or  evening?  Meyer  concludes,  from  the  connection  between  the  entrance  of  Zach- 
arias into  the  temple  and  the  drawing  of  the  lot  (ver.  9),  that  it  was  morning.  This 
proof  is  not  very  conclusive.  Nevertheless,  the  supposition  of  Meyer  is  in  itself  the 
most  probable. 

Tlie  message  of  the  angel  :  vers.  13-17.*  "  But  the  angel  said  unto  him.  Fear  not. 
Zachaiias  :  for  thy  prayer  is  heard  ;  and  thy  wife  Elizabeth  shall  bear  thee  a  son, 
and  thou  shall  call  his  name  John.  14.  And  thou  shalt  have  joy  and  gladness  ;  and 
many  shall  rejoice  at  his  birth.  15.  For  he  shall  be  great  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 
and  shall  drink  neither  wine  nor  stioug  drink  ;  and  he  shall  be  fllled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's  womb.  16.  And  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall 
lie  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God.  17.  And  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and 
\)ower  of  Elias,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  disobedient 
lo  the  wisdom  of  the  just ;  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord." 

The  angel  begins  by  reassuring  Zacharias  (ver.  13) ;  then  he  describes  the  person 
of  the  son  of  Zacharias  (vers.  14,  15),  and  his  mission  (vers.  16,  17). 

In  the  13th  verse  the  angel  tells  Zacharias  that  he  has  not  come  on  an  errand  of 
judgment,  but  of  favor  ;  comp.  Dan.  10  :  13.  The  prayer  of  Zacharias  to  which  the 
angel  alludes  would  be,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  an  entreaty  for  the  advent  of  the 
Me.'^siah.  This,  it  is  said,  is  the  only  solicitude  worthy  of  a  priest  in  such  a  place 
and  at  such  a  time.  But  the  preceding  context  (ver.  7)  is  iu  no  way  favorable  to  this 
explanation,  nor  is  that  which  follows  (ver.  IS*")  ;  for  the  .sense  of  tiie  kul  is  most  cer- 
tainly this  :  "  And  so  thy  wife  Elizabeth    .     .     ."    Further,  the  two  personal  pio- 

*  Ver.  14.  Instead  of  yewtjaei,  which  T.  R.  reads  with  G.  X.  T.  and  several  Mna., 
all  the  others  read  yevFoei.  Ver.  17.  B.  G.  L.  V.  :  TTpoaeXevaETai,  instead  of 
nijocXtvaerui,  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  15  Mjj.,  etc. 


48  COMMKXTAnV    ox    ST.   LL'KE. 

nouns,  cov  and  aol,  "  thy  wife  shall  bear  tTiec,"  as  also  the  aoi,  "  thou  shult  have  (ver. 
14),  prove  positively  the  entirely  personal  character  of  the  prayer  and  its  answer. 
The  objection  that,  according  lo  ver.  7,  he  could  no  longer  expect  to  have  a  child, 
and  consequently  could  not  pray  with  this  design,  exaggerates  the  meaning  of  this 
word.  The  jshrase  KoXelv  ovofia  is  a  Hebraism. ;  it  signifies,  properly,  to  call  any  one 
by  his  name.  The  name  'luawT^S,  John,  is  composed  of  nin''  ^°'l  'jH  :  Jehovah  shows 
grace.  It  is  not  the  character  of  the  preaching  of  this  person  which  is  expressed  by 
this  name  ;  it  belongs  to  the  entire  epoch  of  which  his  appearance  is  the  signal. 

The  14th  verse  describes  the  joy  which  his  birth  will  occasion  ;  it  will  extend  be- 
yond the  narrow  limits  of  the  family  circle,  and  be  spread  over  a  large  part  of  the 
nation.  There  is  an  evident  rising  toward  a  climax  in  this  part  of  the  message  :  1st, 
a  son  ;  2d,  a  son  great  before  God  ;  3d,  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  'AyaAAioaiS 
expresses  the  transports  which  a  lively  emotion  of  ioy  produces.  The  beginning  of 
the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  is  related,  vers.  64-66.  The  reading  yeveaei  is  certainly 
preferable  to  yEvnTJaet,  which  is  perhaps  borrowed  from  the  use  of  the  verb  yei'i'dv  (ver. 

13;. 

The  ardor  of  this  private  and  public  joy  is  justified  in  the  15th  verse  by  the 
eminent  qualities  which  this  child  will  possess  (yap).  The  only  greatness  which  can 
rejoice  the  heart  of  such  a  man  as  Zacharias  is  a  greatness  which  the  Lord  himself 
recognizes  as  such  :  great  before  the  Lord.  This  greatness  is  evidently  that  which 
results  fiom  personal  holiness  and  the  moral  authoritj'^  accompanymg  it.  The  two 
Kai  following  may  be  paraphrased  by  :  and  in  fact.  The  child  is  ranked  beforehand 
among  that  class  of  specially  consecrated  men,  who  may  be  called  the  heroes  of  the- 
ocratic religion,  the  Nazarites.  The  ordinance  respecting  the  kind  of  life  to  be  led 
by  these  men  is  found  in  Num.  6  : 1-31.  The  vow  of  the  Nazarite  was  either  tem- 
porary or  for  life.  The  Old  Testament  offers  us  two  examples  of  this  second  form  : 
Samson  (Judg.  13  :  5-7)  and  Samuel  (1  Sam.  1  :  11).  It  was  a  kind  of  voluntary  lay 
priesthood.  By  abstaining  from  all  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  civilized  life, 
such  as  wine,  the  bath,  and  cutting  the  hair,  and  in  this  way  approaching  the  state  of 
nature,  the  Nazarite  presented  himself  to  the  world  as  a  man  filled  with  a  lofty 
thought,  which  absorbed  all  his  interest,  as  the  bearer  of  a  word  of  God  which  was 
hidden  in  his  heart  (Lange).  I.iKipa  denotes  all  kinds  of  fermented  drink  extracted 
from  fruit,  except  that  derived  from  the  grape.  In  place  of  this  means  of  sensual 
excitement,  John  will  have  a  more  healthfid  stimulant,  the  source  of  all  pure  exalta- 
tion, the  Holy  Spirit,  The  same  contrast  occurs  in  Eph.  5  :  18  :  "  Be  not  drunk 
with  wine  .  .  .  but  be  filled  with  the  Spirit."  And  in  his  case  this  state  will 
begin  from  his  mother's  womb:  In,  even,  is  not  put  for  7/cS;?,  already;  this  word 
signifies,  while  he  is  yet  in  his  mother's  womb.  The  fact  related  (vers.  41-44)  is  ihe 
beginning  of  the  accomplishment  of  this  promise,  but  it  in  no  way  exhausts  its  mean- 
ing. 

Vers.  10,  17.  The  mission  of  the  child  ;  it  is  described  (ver.  16)  in  a  general  and 
abstract  way  :  he  will  bring  back,  turn  ;  this  is  the  ^''tiTI  ^^  ^^^'^  O'^l  Testament.  This 
expression  implies  that  the  people  are  sunk  in  estrangement  from  God.  The  17th 
ver?e  specifies  and  develops  this  mission.  The  pronoun  avroi,  lie,  brings  out  prom- 
inently tiie  person  of  John  with  a  view  to  connect  him  with  the  person  of  the  Lord, 
who  is  to  follow  him  (avTov).  The  relation  between  these  two  personages  thus  set 
forth  is  expressed  by  the  two  prepositions,  npn,  before  (in  the  verb),  and  huTrio^i,  under 
the  eyes  of ;  he  who  precedes  walks  under  the  eyes  of  him  that  comes  after  him.    The 


ciiAi'.    1.  :  IG-IT.  I'J 

Alex.  Tending  iriyoae?Fi<aFTai  has  no  menning.  The  iiroiinun  arrov  (before  liiin;  has 
been  ruferreil  by  some  directly  to  tlie  person  of  the  ]\Iessiuh.  An  iiUeMii)t  is  inude  to 
justify  this  nieauiiig,  by  suying  that  this  personage  is  always  present  to  ihe  miud  of 
the  Israelite  when  he  says  "  he."  J^iit  tliis  meaniug  is  evidently  forced  ;  the  prononn 
?tiin  can  only  refer  to  the  princupal  word  of  tlie  preceding  verse  :  the  Ijord  their  God. 
The  prnpiu'cy.  (^Mal.  3  :  1),  of  which  this  passage  is  an  exact  reproduction,  explains 
it  :  "  Behold,  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me  ; 
and  the  I^ord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger 
of  tlie  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in."  According  to  these  words,  therefoie,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  prophet  the  Messiah  is  no  other  than  Jehovah  himself.  For  il  is  Jehovah 
who  speaks  in  this  prophecy.  It  is  He  who  causes  Himself  to  be  preceded  in  his 
appearance  as  the  Messiah  by  a  f.irerunner  who  receives  (4:5)  the  name  of  Elijah. 
and  who  is  to  prepare  His  waj'.  It  is  He  who,  under  the  names  of  Adonai  (the  Lord) 
and  the  angel  of  the  covenant,  comes  to  take  possession  of  His  temple.  From  the 
Old  as  well  as  the  New  Testament  point  of  view,  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  there- 
fore the  supreme  theophany.  Apart  from  this  way  of  regarding  them,  the  words  of 
ilalachi  and  those  of  the  angel  in  our  17th  verse  are  inexplicable.  See  an  uvtod  very 
similar  to  this  in  the  strictly  analogous  passage,  John  13  :  41  (comp.  with  Isa.  fi). 

It  appears  from  several  passages  in  the  Gospels  that  the  people,  with  their  learned 
men,  expected,  before  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  a  personal  appearance  of  Elijah, 
or  of  some  otlier  prophet  like  him,  probably  both  (John  1  :  21,  32  ;  ]\Ialt.  IfJ  :  14, 
17  :  10,  37  :  47).  The  angel  spiritualizes  this  grossly  literal  hope  :  "  Thy  son  sl);.ll 
be  another  Elijah.  The  Spirit;  designates  the  divine  breath  in  general  ,  and  the  leini 
power,  which  is  added  to  it,  indicates  the  special  character  of  the  Spirit's  intluince 
in  John,  as  formerly  in  Elijah.  The  preposition  £v,  wi,  makes  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
element  into  which  the  ministry  of  John  is  to  strike  its  roots. 

The  picture  of  the  cffcict  i)roduced  by  this  ministry  is  also  borrowed  frrm 
Jlahiclii,  who  had  said  :  "He  shall  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the 
children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  thtir  fathers,  lest  I  come  and  smite 
the  earth  with  a  curse."  The  LXX.,  and,  after  their  example,  many  modem 
iuleipreters,  have  applied  this  description  to  the  re-establishmcnt  of  domestic 
peace  iu  Israel.  But  nothing  either  in  the  ministrv  of  Elijah  or  of  John  the  Baptist 
had  any  special  aim  in  this  direction.  Besides,  such  a  result  has  no  direct  connection 
with  the  preparation  for  the  work  of  the  Messiah,  and  bears  no  proportion  to  the 
threat  wdiich  follows  in  the  prophetic  word  :  "  Lest  I  come  and  smile  the  earth  wilh 
a  curse."  Lastly,  the  thought,  "and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers, " 
taken  ia  this  sense,  could  not  have  substituted  for  it  in  the  discouiseof  the  angel, 
"and  the  rebellious  to  the  wisdom  of  the  just,"  unless  we  suppose  that  in  every 
Israelilish  family  the  children  are  necessarily  rebellious  and  their  patents  just.  Some 
explain  it  thus:  "  He  will  bring  back  to  God  all  together,  both  the  heailsof  the 
fathers  and  those  of  the  children  ;"  but  this  does  violence  to  the  expression  employed. 
Ctdvin  and  others  give  the  word  heart  the  sense  of  feeling  :  "  He  will  btuig  back  the 
pious  feeling  of  the  fathers  [faithful  to  God]  to  the  present  generation  [the  disobedient 
children],  and  turn  the  latter  to  the  wisdom  of  the  former."  But  can  "  to  turn  their 
hciirls  toward"  mean  "  to  awaken  dispositions  iu"  ?  For  tlus  sen.se  fJs  would  have 
been  necessary  instead  of  ^ttI  (rf«m);  btsides,  we  cannot  give  the  verb  imCTr/jt'i/;at 
such  a  different  sense  from  i-riaTpirpei  in  ver.  16.  The  true  sense  of  these  woids,  it 
seems  to  me,  may  be  gathered  from  other  prophetic  passages,  such  as  these :  Isa. 


OO  COMMEXTAllY   OX   ST.   LUKE. 

29  :  22,  "  Jacob  shall  no  more  be  ashamed,  neither  shall  liis  face  wax  pale,  ■when  he 
seeth  his  children  become  the  work  of  my  hands."  Lxiii.  1(5,  "  Doubtless  Thou  ait 
our  Father,  though  Abraham  be  is^uorant  of  us,  and  Israel  acknowleds^e  us  not  ; 
Thou,  O  Lord,  art  our  Father,  our  Redeemer  !"  Abraham  and  Jacob  in  the  place  of 
their  rest,  had  blusiied  at  the  sight  of  their  guilty  descendants,  and  turned  away  their 
faces  from  them  ;  but  now  they  would  turn  again  toward  them  with  satisfaction  in 
consequence  of  the  change  produced  by  the  ministry  of  John.  The  words  of  Jesus 
(John  8  :  56),  "Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad," 
proves  tiiat  there  is  a  reality  underlying  these  poetic  images.  With  this  meaning  the 
moditicalion  introduced  into  the  second  member  of  the  phrase  is  easily  explained. 
The  children  who  will  turn  toward  their  fathers  (Malachi),  are  the  Jews  of  the  time 
of  the  Messiah,  the  children  of  the  obedient,  who  return  to  the  wisdom  of  the  pious 
patriarchs  (Luke).  Is  not  this  moditication  made  with  a  view  to  enlarge  tlie  applica- 
tion of  this  promise?  The  expression,  the  rebellious,  may,  in  fact,  comprehend  not 
only  the  Jews,  but  also  the  heathen.  The  term  aTreiOeli,  rebellious,  is  applied  by  Paul 
(Rom.  11)  to  both  equally.  <^povr/ati  Smdiuv,  the  wlxdom  of  the  just,  denotes  that 
healtiiy  appreciation  of  tilings  which  is  the  privilege  of  upright  hearts.  The  preposi- 
tion bf  rest,  iv,  is  joined  to  a  verb  of  motion,  ETCLarpiiliai,  to  express  the  fact  Ihat  this 
wisdom  is  a  slate  in  which  men  remain  wlien  once  they  have  entered  it.  It  will  be 
John's  mission,  then,  to  reconstitute  the  moral  unjty  of  the  people  by  resloiing  the 
broken  relation  between  the  patriarchs  and  their  descendants.  Tlie  withered  branches 
will  be  quickened  into  new  life  by  sap  proceeding  from  the  trunk.  This  restoration 
of  the  unity  of  the  elect  people  will  be  their  true  preparation  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  Some  interpreters  have  proposed  to  make  iItvelQuc  the  object  of  krot/xdaai, 
and  this  last  a  second  intinilive  of  purpose,  parallel  to  EirtaTpefnc:  "And  to  prepare 
by  the  wisdom  of  the  just,  the  rebellious,  as  a  people  made  ready  for  the  Lord."  It 
is  thought  that  in  this  way  a  tautology  is  avoided  between  the  two  words  kToifiucm,  to 
prepare,  and  KareoKEvaa/ievov,  made  ready,  disposed.  But  these  two  teims  have  dis-tinct 
meanings.  The  first  bears  on  the  relation  of  John  to  the  people  ;  tlic  second  on  the 
relation  of  the  people  to  the  Messiah.  John  prepares  the  people  in  such  a  way  that 
they  are  disposed  to  receive  the  ]\Icssiah.  Of  course  it  is  the  ideal  task  of  the  fore- 
runner that  is  described  here.  In  reality  this  plan  will  succeed  only  in  so  far  as  the 
people  shall  consent  to  surrender  themselves  to  the  divine  action.  Is  it  probable 
that  after  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  when  the  unbelief  of  the  people  was  already  an 
historical  fact,  a  later  writer  would  h-xvc  thought  of  giving  such  an  optimist  coloring 
to  the  discourse  of  the  angel '? 

2.  .Vers.  18-22  relate  the  manner  in  which  the  promise  is  received  ;  and  first, 
the  objection  of  Zacharias  (ver.  18)  ;  next,  his  punishment  (vers.  19,  20)  ;  lastly,  the 
effect  produced  upon  the  people  by  this  latter  circumstance. 

Vers.  18-20.  "And  Zacharias  said  uuto  the  angel.  Whereby  shall  I  know  this? 
for  I  am  an  old  man,  and  my  wife  well  stricken  in  years.  And  the  angel  answering, 
said  unto  him,  I  am  Galn-iel  that  stand  in  the  presence  of  God  ;  and  am  sent  to  speak 
unto  thee,  and  to  show  thee  these  glad  tidings.  And,  behold,  thou  shalt  be  dumb, 
and  not  able  to  speak,  until  the  day  tliat  these  things  shall  be  performed,  because 
thou  believest  not  my  wonls,  which  shall  be  fulfilled  in  their  season."  Abraham, 
Gideon,  and  Hezekiah  had  asked  for  signs  (Gen.  15  ;  Jndg.  G  ;  2  Kings  20)  without 
being  blamed.  God  had  of  Himself  granted  one  to  Moses  (Ex.  4),  and  offered  one 
to  Ahaz  (Isa.  7).     Why,  if  this  was  lawful  in  all  these  cases,  was  il  not  so  m  this  ? 


CHAP.  I.  :  18-20.  51 

There  is  a  muxim  of  luimaii  law  which  says,  Stdaofaciunt  iiUm,  nnn  est  idem.  There 
are  tlifFerent  fiegrces  of  respousibility,  eilher  according  to  the  degree  of  development 
of  the  individual  or  of  the  age,  or  accordiog  to  Ihe  character  of  tlie  divine  manifef-la- 
tion.  God  alone  can  detennine  these  degiees.  It  ai)pears  from  (he  lS)lh  verse  that 
(lie  ap(K'arauce  of  (he  being  wiio  spoke  to  Zacharias  ought  of  itself  (o  have  been  a 
sniliciunt  sign.  In  any  case  (liis  ilillerence  from  the  similar  accounts  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament proves  that  our  narrative  was  not  artificially  diavvn  up  in  imi(ation  of  (hem. 
The  sign  requested  is  designated  by  the  preposition  Kara,  uccovding  to,  as  (he  norm  of 
knowleilgc.  The  yap,  for,  refers  to  this  idea  understood  :  I  have  need  of  such  a  sign. 
Yet  Zacharias  prayed  for  this  very  thing  wliich  now,  when  promised  by  God,  appears 
impossible  to  him.  It  is  an  inconsistency,  but  one  in  keepuig  with  the  laws  of  our 
moral  nature.  The  narrative,  Ao(s  12,  in  which  we  see  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
praying  for  the  deli  verauce  of  Peter,  and  refusing  to  believe  it  when  grunted,  presents 
a  similar  case. 

In  order  to  make  Zacharias  feel  the  seriousness  of  his  faidt,  the  angel  (ver.  19) 
refers  to  two  things  :  his  dignity  as  a  divine  nie.sseuger,  and  the  uatuie  of  his  mes- 
saije.  'F.yio,  I,  coming  first,  brings  his  person  into  pron'.inence.  But  he  immediately 
adds,  that  stand  in  the  presence  of  God,  to  show  that  it  is  not  he  who  is  ofTeuded, 
hut  Gud  who  has  sent  him.  The  name  Gabriel  is  composed  of  ~23  and  ^^  \  vir  Dei, 
the  mighty  messenger  of  God.  The  Bible  knows  of  only  two  heavenly  personnges 
who  aie  invested  with  a  name,  Gabriel  (Dan.  8  :  16,  9  :  21)  and  Michael  (Dan.  10  :  13, 
21  ;  12  :  1  ;  Jude  9  ;  Rev.  12  :  7).  This  latter  name  (^7X1''^)  signifies,  who  is  like  God? 
Ileic  the  critic  asks  sarcastically  whether  Hebrew  is  si^iken  in  heaven?  But  these 
names  are  evideully  sym!)olif'al  ;  (hey  convey  to  us  the  character  and  fuuclions  of 
these  personalities.  When  we  speak  to  any  one,  it  is  naturally  with  a  view  to  be 
underftocd.  When  heaven  connnunicates  with  earth,  it  is  obliged  to  borrow  the 
language  of  earth.  According  to  (he  name  given  him,  Gabriel  is  the  mighty  servant 
of  God  employed  to  promote  His  vvoik  here  below.  It  is  in  this  capacity  (hat  he 
appears  to  Daniel,  when  he  conies  to  announce  to  him  (he  restoration  of  Jerusalem  ;  it 
is  he  also  who  promises  Mary  the  birth  of  the  Saviour.  In  all  these  circumstances  he 
appears  as  the  heavenly  evangelist.  Tlie  part  of  Gabriel  is  positive  ;  that  of  Michael 
is  negative.  Michael  is,  as  his  name  indicates,  the  destroyer  of  every  one  who  dares 
to  equal,  that  is,  to  oppose  God.  Such  is  his  mission  in  Daniel,  where  he  contends 
against  the  powers  hostile  to  Israel  ;  such  also  is  it  in  Jude  and  in  (he  Apocalypse, 
wheie  he  fights,  as  the  champion  of  God,  against  Satan,  the  author  of  idolat'y  : 
Gabiiel  builds  up,  Michael  overthrows.  The  former  is  the  forerunner  of  Jehovah  (he 
Savi  )ur,  the  latter  of  Jehovah  the  Judge.  Do  not  these  two  heareiily  personages 
reininil  us  of  (he  (wo  angels  who  accompanied  Jehovah  ^Geu.  18)  when  He  came  (o 
announce  to  Abraham,  on  the  one  hami,  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and,  on  (he  other,  the 
di-struction  of  Sodom  ?  Biblical  aogelology  makes  mention  of  no  other  perwons 
belonging  to  the  upper  world.  But  this  wise  sobriety  did  not  satisfy  later  Judaism  ; 
it  knew  besides  an  angel  Uriel,  who  gives  good  counsel,  and  an  angel  Raphael,  who 
works  bodily  cures.  The  Persian  angelology  is  richer  still.  It  reckons  no  less  than 
seven  superior  spirits  or  amschaspands.  How,  then,  can  it  be  maintained  that  the 
Jewish  angelology  is  a  Persian  importation?  History'  does  not  advance  from  the 
complicated  to  the  simple.  Besides,  (he  uanadve.  Gen.  18,  in  which  the  two 
archangels  appear,  is  prior  (o  the  contact  of  Israel  with  (he  Persian  religion.  Lastly, 
the  idea  represented    by  these  two  personages  is  essentially  Jewish.     These  two 


Oa  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

notions,  of  a  work  of  grace  pcrsonifierl  in  Gabriel,  and  of  a  work  of  jnclgment  per- 
sonified in  Michael,  have  Ihtnr  rools  in  the  depths  of  Jewi.-jh  monotheism.  The  term 
to  stand  before  God  indicates  a  permanent  function  (Isa.  G  :  2).  This  messenger  is  one 
of  the  servants  of  God  nearest  llis  throne.  This  superior  dignity'  necessarily  rests  on 
a  higher  degree  of  holintss.  We  may  compare  1  Kings  17  :  1,  where  Elijah  says, 
"  The  Lord  before  whom  Island."  Jesus  expresses  Himself  in  a  similar  manner 
(Matt.  18)  respecting  the  guardian  angels  of  the  litltle  ones  :  "  Their  angels  do  always 
behold  the  face  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Such  a  being  deserves  t)  be 
taken  at  his  word  ;  how  much  more  when  he  is  the  bearer  of  a  message  which  is  to 
fulfil  the  desires  of  him  to  whom  he  is  sent,  and  answer  his  earnest  supplication  (ver. 
ly'')  ! 

The  chastisefnent  inflicted  on  Zacharias  (ver.  20)  is  at  the  same  time  to  serve  as  a 
sign  to  him.  'IfSoy,  behold,  indicates  the  imexpected  character  of  this  disoensation. 
1,Lunt.C)v,  not  speaking,  denotes  simjjly  the  fact  ;  ixfj  (hidfuvoS,  not  being  able  to  speak, 
discloses  its  cause  ;  this  silence  will  not  be  voluntar3\  OiYn-ec,  ichich,  as  such,  that  is 
to  say,  aa  being  the  worris  of  such  a  being  as  I  am.  It  may  seem  that  with  the  future 
shall  be  fulfilled,  the  preposition  kv  is  required,  and  not  ei?.  But  eJs  indicates  that 
the  performance  -<)i  the  promise  will  begin  immediately  in  order  to  its  completion  at 
the  appointed  time  ;  cornp.  Rom.  6  :  22,  eh  uyi-aa/uov.  KaipoS,  their  season,  refers  not 
only  to  the  time  (xpo^os),  but  to  the  entire  circumstances  in  which  this  fulfilment  will 
take  place.  There  is  not  a  word  in  this  speech  of  the  angel  which  is  not  at  once 
simple  and  worthy  of  the  mouth  into  which  it  is  put.  It  is  not  after  this  fashion  that 
man  makes  heaven  speak  whtn  he  is  inventing  ;  only  read  the  apocryphal  writings  ! 

Vers.  21  and  22.  According  to  the  Talmud,  the  high  priest  did  not  remain  long  in 
the  holy  of  holies  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  iiluch  more  would  lliis  be  true  of 
llie  priest  officiating  daily  in  the  holy  place.  The  analytical  form  yv  7rpoo(hiiuv 
depicts  the  lengthened  expectation  and  uneasiness  which  began  to  take  possession  of 
the  people.  The  text  inclicates  that  the  events  which  had  just  taken  place  was  made 
known  in  two  ways  :  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  silence  of  Zacharias  ;  on  the  other,  by 
signs  by  which  he  himself  {avroi)  indicated  its  cause.  The  analytical  form  yv  diavtvuv 
denotes  the  frequent  repetition  of  the  same  signs,  and  the  imperfect  dunevev,  he 
remained  dumb,  depicts  the  increasing  surprise  produced  by  his  continuing  in  this 
state. 

'6.  The  aecomjMshment  of  the  promise  :  vers.  23-25.  The  subject  of  eyivero,  it  came 
to  pass,  is  all  that  follows  to  the  end  of  ver.  25.  Comp  a  similar  iyevtro.  Acts  U  :  8.  The 
active  form  ttepukiwiSev  kavri/v,  literally,  she  kept  herself  concealed,  expi esses  a  mure 
energetic  action  than  that  designated  by  the  middle  7r£/j(£/i7rJi/;aro.  Elizabetli  isolated 
beiself  intentionally,  rendering  herself  invisible  to  her  neighbors.  Her  conduct  lias 
been  explained  in  many  ways.  Origen  and  Ambrose  thouu-ht  that  it  was  the  result 
of  a  kind  of  false  modesty.  Paulus  supposed  that  Elizabeth  wished  to  obtain  assur- 
ance of  the  reality  of  lier  hai)piness  before  spealiing  about  it.  According  to  De 
Wette,  this  retreat  was  nothing  moie  than  a  precaution  for  her  heahb.  It  was  dictated, 
according  to  Bleek  and  Oosteizee,  b}^  a  desitefor  meditation  and  by  sentiments  of 
humble  gratitude.  Of  all  these  explanations,  the  last  certainly  appears  the  best.  But 
it  in  no  way  accounts  for  the  term  for  five  months,  so  particularly  mentioned. 
Further,  how  from  this  point  of  view  are  we  to  explain  the  singular  expression,  Thns 
hath  the  Lord  dealt  with  me?  The  full  meaning  of  this  -word  thns  is  necessarily 
weakened  by  applying  it  iu  a  general  way  to  tlie  greatness  of  the  blesbiug  conferred 


CHAP.  I.  :  26-38.  53 

on  Elizabeth,  "while  this  expression  naturally  establishes  a  connection  between  the 
practice  siie  pursues  toward  herself  from  this  time,  and  God's  method  of  dealing  witu 
her  What  is  this  connection?  Does  she  not  mean,  "  I  will  treat  myself  as  God  haa 
treated  my  repioacii.  He  has  taken  it  away  from  me;  I  will  therefore  wiihilraw 
myself  from  the  sight  of  men,  so  long  as  1  nm  any  risk  of  still  bearing  it,  when  I  am 
in  reality  dilivered  from  it?"  Kestored  by  God,  she  feels  that  she  owes  it  to  herself, 
as  well  as  to  Ilim  who  has  honored  her  in  this  way,  to  expose  herself  no  more  to  the 
scornful  regards  of  men  until  she  can  ai)peur  before  them  eviiieutly  honored  by  the 
proofs  of  the  divine  favor.  In  this  way  the  term  tive  months,  which  she  fixes  for 
her  seclusion,  becomes  perfectly  intelligible.  For  it  is  after  the  fifth  month  that  the 
condition  of  a  pregnant  woman  becomes  appaieut.  Therefore  it  is  not  until  then 
that  she  can  appear  again  in  society,  as  what  she  really  is,  restored.  In  this  comiuct 
and  declaration  there  is  a  mixture  of  womanly  pride  and  humble  gratitude  which 
makes  them  a  very  exquisite  expression  of  maternal  feeling  for  one  in  such  a  posi- 
tion. We  .should  like  to  know  what  later  narrator  would  have  invented  such  a  deli- 
cate touch  as  this.  But  the  authenticity  of  this  single  detail  implies  the  authenticity 
of  the  whole  of  the  preceding  narrative.*  "On  must  be  taken  here  in  the  sense  of 
because  ;  Elizabeth  wants  to  justifj-^  whatever  is  iinu.«ual  in  the  course  of  conduct  she 
has  just  adopted.  '"ETceh^Ev  a^sTielv,  "  He  has  regarded  me  in  a  manner  that  takes 
away  ;"  he  ha«  cast  on  me  one  of  those  efficacious  looks  which,  as  the  Psalmist  sa.ys, 
are  delivcTance  itself.  On  barrenness  as  a  reproach,  comp.  Gen.  30  :  23,  where,  after 
the  birth  of  her  first-born,  Rachel  cries,  "  God  has  taken  away  my  reproach." 

This  saying  of  Elizabeth's  discloses  all  the  humiliations  which  the  pious  Israelite 
had  endured  from  her  neighbors  during  these  long  years  of  barrenness.  This  also 
ccmes  out  indirectly  from  ver.  36,  in  which  the  -mgel  makes  use  of  the  expression, 
"  Her  who  was  called  barren."  This  epithet  had  become  a  kind  of  sobriquet  for  Uur 
in  the  mouth  of  the  people  of  the  place. 

SECOND   NARUATTTE. — CHAP.    1  1  20-38. 

Announcement  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus. 

Tlie  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  like  that  of  Isaac,  was  due  to  a  higher  power  ;  btit 
it  did  not  certainly  transcend  the  limits  of  the  natural  order.  It  is  otherwise  with  tlie 
birth  of  Jesus  ;  it  has  the  character  of  a  creative  act.  In  importance  it  constitutes 
the  counterpart,  not  of  the  birth  of  Isaac,  but  of  the  appearance  of  the  first  man  ; 
Jesus  is  the  second  Adam.  This  birth  is  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  come.  If 
this  character  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  be  denied,  the  whole  of  the  subsequent  nar- 
rative remains  unintelligible  and  inadmissible.  Directly  it  is  conceded,  all  the  lest 
accords  with  it. 

But  the  creative  character  of  this  birth  does  not  destroy  the  connection  between  thu 
old  and  the  new  era.  We  have  just  seen  how,  in  the  birth  of  the  greatest  rcprei-enta- 
tive  of  the  old  covenant,  God  remained  faithful  to  the  theocratic  past,  by  making  the 
Israelitish  priesthood  the  cradle  of  this  child.     He  acts  in  the  same  way  when  the 

*  For  this  beautiful  explanation  I  am  indebted  to  the  friend  to  whom  I  h".ve  had 
the  joy  of  dedicating  my  coniinenlary  <;n  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  with  whom  I  ha>'e 
more  than  once  read  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  Professor  diaries  Piitice,  who  now  beiioMs 
face  to  fare  Ilim  whom  we  have  so  olten  contemplated  together  in  the  mirror  if  llii 
word.     Generally  speaking,  this  cummentary  is  as  mnch  h.s  as  mine. 


54  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

Head  of  renewed  liumauity,  Ihe  Lord  of  the  world  to  come,  is  to  make  His  appear- 
ance ;  He  causes  Him  to  come  forth  as  a  scioa  from  the  stuclc  of  the  aacieut  royalty 
of  Israel.  Further,  God  has  respect  in  this  work  to  the  conditions  of  the  huniiia 
past  generally,  While  creating  in  Him  a  new  humanity,  He  is  careful  to  preseive 
the  link  which  unites  Him  to  the  ancient  humanity.  Just  as  in  the  first  creation  He 
did  not  create  man's  body  out  of  nothing,  i)ut  formed  it  out  of  the  dust  of  the  already 
existing  earth,  of  which  Adam  was  to  become  the  lord  ;  so,  at  the  appearance  of  the 
second  Adam,  He  did  not  properly  create  His  body  ;  He  took  it  from  tlie  woml)  of  n 
human  mother,  so  as  to  maintain  the  organic  connection  which  must  exist  between 
the  Head  of  the  new  humanity  and  that  natural  humanity  which  it  is  His  mission  to 
raise  to  the  height  of  His  own  stature. 

This  narrative  records:  1.  The  ap[)carance  of  the  angel  (vers.  26-29);  2.  His 
message  (vers.  30-33)  ;  3.  The  manner  in  which  his  message  is  received  (ver.  34-38). 

1.  T/ie  appearance  of  the  avgel:  vers.  26-21).*  From  the  temple  the  narrative 
transports  us  to  the  house  of  a  young  Isratlilish  woman.  We  leave  the  spheie  of 
ofBcial  station  to  enter  into  the  seclusion  of  private  life.  Mary  probably  was  in 
player.  Her  chamber  is  a  sanctuary  ;  such,  henceforth,  will  be  the  true  temple.  Tlie 
date,  the  sixth  month,  refers  to  that  given  in  ver.  24.  It  was  the  time  when  Eliza- 
beth had  just  left  her  retirement  ;  all  that  takes  place  in  the  visitation  of  Mary  is  in 
connection  with  this  circumstance.  The  government  vivb  tcv  Oeov,  by  God,  or,  as  s mie 
Alex,  read,  aird  rov  deov,  on  the  part  of  God,  indicates  a  difference  between  this  mes- 
sage and  that  m  ver.  19.  God  interposes  more  directly  ;  it  is  a  question  here  of  His 
own  Son.  The  received  reading  vro,  by,  seems  to  me  for  this  reason  more  in  accord- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  the  context  than  the  Alex,  reading,  which  lays  less  emphasis 
on  the  divine  origin  of  the  message. 

The  most  usual  foim  of  the  n«me  of  the  town  in  the  documents  is  Nazareth  :  it  is 
admitted  here  by  Tischendorf  in  his  eigiith  edition.  He  accords,  however,  some 
probability  to  the  form  Nazara,  which  is  the  reading  of  4  :  16  in  the  principal  Alex- 
andrians. In  Matt.  3  :  23,  the  Mss.  c^ly  vary  between  Nazareth  and  Nazaiel.  Keim, 
in  his  "  History  of  Jesus,"  has  decided  for  Nazara.  He  gives  his  leasons,  i.  p.  319 
et  seq  :  1.  The  derived  adjectives  Nai^ufialui,  Na(apT}vdi  are  most  readily  explained 
from  this  form.  2.  The  form  Nazareth  could  easily  come  from  Nazara,  as  Ramatli 
from  Rana  (by  the  addition  of  the  Arameun  article).  The  forms  Nazaretii  and  Naza- 
ret  may  also  be  explained  as  forms  derived  from  that.  3.  The  phrase  and  Na^apuv, 
in  Eusebius,  supposes  the  nominative  Nazara.  4.  It  is  the  form  preserved  in  the 
existing  Arabic  name  en-Nezirah.  Still  it  would  be  pofsible,  even  though  the  true 
name  was  Nazara,  that  Luke  might  have  been  accustomed  to  Use  the  foim  Nazareth  ; 
Tischendorf  thinks  that  this  may  be  inferred  from  Acts  10  :  38,  where  5i  B.  C.  D.  E. 
read  Nazareth.     The  etymology  of  this  name  is  probably  "ij^'j  (whence  the  feminine 

*  Ver.  26.  5i.  B.  L.  W«.  and  some  Mnu.,  ano  instead  of  i'tto,  which  is  the  read- 
ing of  T.  R.  with  16  Mjj.  and  almost  all  the  Mnu.  The  mss,  varv  heie  belwetn 
Na(apeO  (C.  E.  G  H.  M.'  S.  U.  V.  T.  A.  Iipieriq„e  .  iu  addition,  !».  at  2:4,  and  B.  at 
2  :39.  51),  NaCnpnO  (A.  A.),  and  NaCnper  (K.  L.  X.  H  and  Z.  at2  : 4)  ;  further,  »  B,  Z. 
read  Na(apa  id  4  :  16.  Ver.  27.  i^.  B.  F"'.  L.  and  32  Mnu.  add  after  olkov,  kcl  Trnrpiac 
(taken  from  2  :4).  Ver.  28.  !!i.  B.  L.  W<=.  and  some  Mnn.  omil  the  words  Fvloyvnevri 
(TV  ev  yvi'ai^Lv,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  16  Mjj.,  almost  all  the  Mnn.,  Syi*. 
It.  Vulg.  Ver.  29.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  X.  and  some  Mnn.  omit  idnvaa,  which  T.  R.  reads 
after  v  ^e  along  with  15  Mjj.,  the  other  Man.,  Syr,  It.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  X.  and  some  Mnn. 
omit  nvrov  after  Xoyu. 


ojiAi'.    1.  :  :*4-33.  55 

form  n"^iJ2)'  (^  ^^'c^^  or  scion  ;  this  is  (he  form  used  ia  the  Tiilmud.  Tlic  Fathers 
acoordinyly  perceived  in  this  name  an  allusion  to  the  scion  of  David  in  tiie  prophets. 
Burckhardt  the  traveller  explains  it  more  simply  by  the  numerous  shruhs  which 
clothe  the  ground.  Hitzig  has  proposed  another  etymology  ;  niHIj.  '^'^  guanUan,  the 
name  referring  either  to  some  pagan  divinity,  the  protectress  of  the  locality,  as  this 
scholar  thinks,  or,  as  Keim  supposes,  to  the  town  itself,  on  account  of  its  command- 
ing the  ditile  of  the  valley. 

Nazareth,  with  a  poi)ulation  at  the  present  day  of  3000  inhabitants,  is  about  three 
days'  journey  north  of  Jerusalem,  and  about  eight  leagues  west  of  Tiberias.  Il  is 
only  H  short  distance  from  Tabor.  It  is  reached  from  the  valley  of  Je/.reel  through  a 
mrunlain  gorge  running  from  S.  to  N.,  and  opening  out  into  a  pleasant  basin  of  some 
twenty  minutes  in  length  by  ten  in  width.  A  chain  of  hills  shuts  in  the  valley  on  its 
northern  side.  Nazareth  occupies  its  lower  slopes,  and  lises  in  smiling  terraces 
above  the  valley.  From  the  summit  of  the  lidge  which  incloses  this  basin  on  the 
noith  there  is  a  splendid  view.*  This  valley  was  in  Israel  just  what  Israel  was  iu 
the  midst  of  the  earth— a  place  at  once  secluded  and  open,  a  solitary  retreat  and  a 
high  post  of  observation,  inviting  medilalion  and  at  the  same  time  affording  oppor- 
tunity for  far  reaching  views  in  al!  directions,  consequently  admiiably  adapted  for 
an  education  of  which  God  reserved  to  Himself  the  initiative,  and  which  man  couUl 
not  touch  without  spoiling  it.  The  explanation,  a  toini  of  Oulilcc,  is  evidently  in- 
tended for  Gentile  readeis  ;  it  is  added  by  the  translator  to  the  Jewish  document  that 
lay  before  him. 

Do  the  words,  of  the  Jiouite  of  David,  ver.  27,  refer  to  Joseph  or  Mary?  Gram- 
matically, it  appears  to  us  that  the  form  of  the  following  sentence  rather  favors  the 
former  alternative.  For  if  this  clause  applied,  in  the  writer's  mind,  to  Mary,  he 
would  have  contiuned  his  nairalive  in  this  form:  "and  her  name  was  .  .  ." 
rather  than  iu  this  :  "  and  the  young  gill's  name  was  .  .  ."  But  does  it  follow 
from  this  that  Mary  was  not,  in  Luke's  opinion,  a  descendant  of  David  ?  By  nt> 
means.  Yeis.  32  and  60  have  no  sense  unless  the  author  regarded  Mary  herself  as 
a  daughter  of  this  king.     See  3  :  23. 

The  term  x^P^'''"'^'^  nva,  to  make  any  one  the  object  of  one's  favor,  is  applied  to 
believers  in  general  (Eph.  1  :6).  Thete  is  no  thought  bete  of  outward  graces,  as  the 
translation/;//^  of  grace  would  imply.  The  angel,  having  designated  Mary  by  this 
expression  as  the  special  object  of  divine  favor,  justifies  this  address  by  the  words 
which  follow  :  The  Lord  with  tliee.  Supply  is,  and  not  be ;  it  is  not  a  wish.  The 
heavenly  visitant  speaks  as  one  knowing  how  matters  stood.  The  words.  "  Blessed 
art  thou  among  women,"  are  not  genuine  ;  they  are  taken  from  ver.  42,  where  they 
are  not  wanting  in  any  document. 

The  imi)ression  made  on  Mary,  ver.  20,  is  not  that  of  fear  ;  it  is  a  troubled  feeling, 
ver}'  natural  in  a  young  girl  who  is  suddenly  made  aware  of  the  unexjjccted  piesence 
of  a  strange  person.  The  T.  R.  indicates  two  causes  of  trouble  :  "  And  when  she  saw 
him,  she  was  troubled  at  his  saying."  By  the  omission  of  'n^oiaa,  ichen  she  saw,  the 
Alexs.  leave  only  one  remaining.  But  this  very  simplification  casts  suspicion  on 
their  reading.  The  two  an(;ient  Syriac  and  Latin  translations  here  agree  with  the  T. 
R.  The  meaning  is,  that  trouble  was  joined  to  the  surprise  caused  by  the  sight  of  the 
angel,  as  soon  as  his  words  had  confirmed  the  reality  of  his  presence.     HoraTrc/S 

*  Sec  Keim's  fine  description,  "  Gesch.  Jesu."  t.  i.  p.  321. 


oG  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

denotes  properly  the  origin  {ttov  to  utto).  But  this  terra  applies  also  to  the  contents 
and  value,  as  is  the  case  liere.  What  was  the  meaning,  the  import  of  .  .  .  Having 
thus  prepared  Mary,  the  angel  pioceeds  with  the  message  he  has  hrought. 

3.  The  message  ol"  the  angel  :  veis.  30-33.*  "  And  the  angel  said  unto  her,  Fear 
not,  Mary  ;  for  thou  hast  found  favor  with  God.  31.  And,  behold,  thou'  shalt  con- 
ceive in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  His  name  Jesus.  32.  He 
shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give 
unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David  :  33.  And  He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of 
Jacob  for  ever  ;  and  of  His  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  By  long  continuance, 
Mary's  trouble  would  have  degenerated  into  fear.  The  angel  prevents  this  painful 
impression:  "  Fear  not. "  The  term  evpeS  x^^P'-'^,  thou  hast  found  favor,  reproduces 
the  idea  of  KExapiTunevri ;  this  expression  l)eloiigs  to  the  Greek  of  theLXX.  The  angel 
proceeds  to  enumerate  the  striking  proofs  of  this  assertion,  the  marks  of  divine  favor  : 
1st,  a  son  ;  2d,  His  name,  a  sigu  of  blessing  ;  3d,  His  personal  superiority  ;  4th,  His 
divine  title  ;  lastly,  His  future  and  eternal  sovereignty.  'Uov,  behold,  express^-es  the 
unexpected  character  of  the  fact  announced.  'iTjaoOi,  Jesus,  is  the  Greek  form  of 
yVO'^'  Jeschovah,  which  was  gradually  substituted  for  the  older  and  fuller  form  yili^irp. 
Jehosciiovah,  of  which  the  meaning  is,  Jehovah  saves.  The  same  command  is  given 
by  the  angel  to  Joseph,  Matt.  1  :  21.  with  this  comment:  "Fur  He  shall  save  His 
people  from  their  sins."  Criticism  sees  here  the  proof  of  two  different  and  contra- 
dictory traditions.  But  if  the  reality  of  these  two  divine  messages  is  admitted,  there 
is  nothing  surprising  in  their  agreement  on  this  point.  As  to  the  two  traditions,  we 
leave  them  until  we  come  to  the  general  considerations  at  the  end  of  chap.  2.  The 
I)erson;d  quality  of  this  son  :  He  shall  be  great — first  of  all,  iu  holiness  ;  this  is  true 
greatness  in  the  judgment  of  Heaven  ;  then,  and  as  a  consequence,  in  power  and 
iuflueuce.  His  title  :  Son  of  the  Highest.  This  title  corresponds  with  His  real  nature. 
For  the  expression.  He  shall  be  called,  signifies  here,  universally  recognized  as  such, 
and  that  because  He  is  such  in  fact.  This  title  has  been  regarded  as  a  simple  synonym 
for  that  of  Messiah.  But  the  passages  cited  in  proof,  Matt.  26  :  63  and  John  1  :  50, 
prove  precisely  the  contrarj'  :  the  first,  because  had  the  title  Son  of  God  signified 
nothing  more  in  the  view  of  the  Sanhedrim  than  that  of  Messiah,  there  would  have 
been  no  blasphemy  in  assuming  it,  even  falsely  ;  the  second,  because  it  would  be  idle 
to  put  two  titles  together  between  which  there  was  no  difference.!  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Trinitarian  sense  should  not  be  here  applied  to  the  term  Son  of  God.  The 
notion  of  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  is  quite  foreign 
lo  the  context.  Mary  could  not  have  comprehended  it  ;  and  on  the  supposition  that 
she  had  comprehended  or  even  caught  a  glimpse  of  it,  so  far  from  being  sustained  by 
it  in  her  work  as  a  mother,  she  would  have  been  rendered  incapable  of  performing  it. 
The  notion  here  expressed  by  the  title  Son  of  God  is  solely  that  of  a  personal  and 
mysterious  relation  between  this  child  and  the  Divine  Being.  The  angel  explains 
more  clearly  the  meaning  of  this  term  in  ver.  35.  Lastly,  the  dignity  and  mission  of 
this  child  :  He  is  to  fulfil  the  office  of  Messiah.  The  expressions  are  borrowed  from 
the  prophetic  descriptions,  2  Sara.  7  :  12,  13  ;  Isa.  9  :  5-7.  The  throne  of  David 
Khould  not  be  taken  here  as  the  emblem  of  the  throne  of  God,  nor  the  house  of  Jacob 

*  Ver.  30.  D.  alone  reads  /xapia  instead  of  fiaptan  ;  so  at  vers.  39,  56,  and  (with 
C,  at  vers.  34,  38,  46,  2  :  19,  the  Mss.  are  divided  between  these   two  readings. 

f  See  my  "  Conferences  apologetiques,"  6th  conference:  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  pp.  i5-18. 


CUAP.  T.  :  34-38.  57 

as  a  figurative  designation  of  the  Church.  Tiicse  expressions  in  the  mouth  of  the 
angel  keep  their  natural  and  literal  sense.  It  is,  indeed,  the  theocratic  royalty  and 
the  Israelilish  people,  neitht-r  more  nor  les<s,  that  are  in  question  here  ;  Mary  could 
have  un  ierstood  these  expressions  in  no  other  way.  It  is  tiue  llial,  for  the  proniisL*  to 
be  realized  in  this  sense,  Israel  must  have  consented  to  welcome  Jesus  as  their  Alessiah. 
In  that  case,  the  transformed  theocracy  would  have  opened  its  bosom  to  the 
lieathcn  ;  and  the  empire  of  Israel  would  have  assumed,  by  the  very  fact  of  this 
incorporation,  the  character  of  a  universal  monarchy.  The  unbelief  of  Israel  foiled 
this  plan,  and  subverted  the  regular  course  of  history  ;  so  that  at  the  present  day  the 
fulfilment  of  these  promises  is  still  postponed  to  the  future.  But  is  it  likely,  after  the 
failure  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  among  this  people,  that  about  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  when  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  had  already  taken  place,  any  writer 
would  have  made  an  angel  prophesy  what  is  expressed  here  ?  This  picture  of  the 
Messianic  work  could  have  been  produced  at  no  other  epoch  than  that  to  which  this 
nan  alive  refers  it — at  the  transition  period  between  the  old  and  new  covenants. 
Besides,  would  it  have  been  pos.sil)le,  at  any  later  period,  to  reproduce,  with  such 
artless  simplicity  and  freshness,  the  hopes  of  these  early  days? 

3.  The  manner  in  which  the  message  was  received  :  vers.  34-38.*  "  34.  Then 
said  Mary  unto  the  angel,  How  shall  this  be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man  V  35.  And  the 
angel  answered  and  said  unto  her.  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.  36.  And,  behold,  thy  cousin 
Elizabeth,  she  hath  also  conceived  a  son  in  her  old  age  ;  and  this  is  the  si.Mh  month 
with  her,  who  was  called  barren.  37.  For  with  God  nothing  shall  he  impossible. 
38.  And  Mary  said,  Behold  the  handmaid  of  the  Lord  ;  be  it  unto  me  according  to 
thy  word.  And  the  angel  departed  from  her."  Mary's  question  does  not  express 
doubt  :  it  simply  a.sks  for  an  explanation,  and  this  very  request  implies  faith.  Hfr 
question  is  the  legitimate  expression  of  the  astonishment  of  a  pure  conscience;.  We 
observe  in  the  angel's  reply  the  parallelism  which  among  the  Hel  rews  is  always  the 
expression  of  exalted  feeling  and  the  mark  of  the  poetic  style.  The  angel  touches 
upon  the  most  sacred  of  mysteries,  and  his  .speech  becomes  a  song.  Are  the  terms 
come  upon,  overshadow,  borrowed,  as  Bleek  Ihiuks,  from  the  image  of  a  bird  cover- 
ing her  eggs  or  brooding  over  her  young  ?  Comp.  Gen.  1  :  3.  It  appears  to  us  rather 
that  these  expressions  allude  to  the  cloud  which  covered  the  (lamp  of  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert.  In  9  :  34,  as  here,  the  evangelist  describes  the  approach  of  this  m^'sterl- 
ous  cloud  by  the  term  k-jinmni^eiv.  The  H0I3'  Ghost  denotes  here  the  divine  power, 
the  life-giviiii;  breath  which  calls  into  developed  existence  the  germ  of  a  human  per- 
sonality .sluiiibering  in  Mary's  womb.  This  germ  is  the  link  which  unites  Jesus  to 
human  nature,  and  makes  Him  a  member  of  the  race  He  comes  to  save.  Thus  in 
this  birth  the  miracle  of  the  first  creation  is  repeated  on  a  scale  of  greater  power. 
Two  elements  concurred  in  the  formation  of  man  :  a  body  taken  from  the  ground, 
and  the  divine  breath.  With  these  two  elf menis  correspond  here  the  germ  derived 
from  the  womb  of  Mary,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  who  fertilizes  it.     The  absolute  purity 

*  Yer.  34.  Some  ]\Iij.  !Mnn.  Vss.  and  Fathers  add  t-ini  to  eiTai.  Ver.  35.  C.  several 
Man.  It.  add  f/c  cov  after  yewufiEvov.  Yer.  36.  Instead  of  avyyevr^c.  9  Mjj.  several 
Mnn.  read  avyytvii.  Instead  of  avvEi/.Tj^via,  the  reading  of  T.  li.  with  16  -Mj.].,  the 
^Inn.  Syr.,  !*.  B.  L.  Z.,  avvti'\i]<piv.  Ver.  37.  Instead  of  Tcapa  tw  Brtj,  it.  B.  L.  Z. , 
■znpn  rnv  Beov. 


58  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

of  this  binn  results  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  peifect  holiness  of  the  divine  principle 
which  is  irs  ;;fhcient  cause  ;  on  the  other,  f:uni  the  absence  of  every  impure  motion 
in  her  who  becomes  a  mother  under  tlie  power  of  such  a  principle.. 

By  tlie  word  also  ('•  therefore  also")  the  angel  alludes  to  his  preceding  words  : 
He  shall  be  calleu  the  Sun  of  the  Highest.     We  might  paraphrase  it ;  "  And  it  is 
precisely  for  this  reason  that  1  said  to  thee,  that    .     .     ."     We  have  then  here,  from 
the  moulh  of  the  augel  himself,  an  authentic  explanation  of  the  term  "  Son  of  God" 
in  the  former  part  of  his  message.     After  this  expltination,  Mary  could  only  under- 
stand the  title  in  this  sense  :  a  human  being  of  whose  existence  God  Himself  is  the 
immediate  author.     It  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  pre-existeuce,  but  it  implies  more 
than  the  term  Messiah,  which  only  refers  to  His  mission.     The  word  v-ipiarov,  of  the 
JIUjli  at,  also  refers  to  the  term  v'io<i  vtpiaTov,  Sonoftlte  Highest,  ver.  33,  and  explains  it. 
Bletk,  following  the   Peschito,  Tertulliau,  etc.,  makes  ayioi'  the  predicate  of  K/riOr/aeTm, 
and  vioS  Qeov  in  apposition  with  uyiuv:  "  Wherefore  that  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  holy.  Son  of  God."    But  with  the  predicate  hob/,  the  verb  should  have 
been,  not  "  sA«W  be  called,"  but  shallbe.     For  holy  is  not  a  title.     Besides,  the  con- 
nection with  ver.  32  will  not  allow  any  other  predicate  \o  he  i^ivftxi  io  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God.     The  subject  of  the  phrase  is  therefore  the  complex  term  to  yEi'i'6/uevov 
dytov,  the  hohj  tiling  conceived  in  thee,  and  more  especially  (iyiov,  the  holy  ;  this  adjec 
live  is  taken  as  a  substantive.     As  the  adjective  of  yevvufxevov,  taken  substanlively,  it 
would  of  necessity  be  preceded  by  the  article.     The  words  ek  gov  are  a  gioss.     What 
is  the  connection  between  this  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  and  His  perfect  holiness  ? 
The  latter  dues  not  necessarily  result  from  the  former.     For  holiness  is  a  fact  of  vo- 
lition, not  of  nature.     How  could  we  assign  any  serious  meaning  to  the  moral  strug- 
gles in  the  history  of  Jesus— the  temptation,  for  example— if  His  perfect  holiness  was 
the  necessary  consequence  of  His  miraculous  birth  ?     But  it  is  not  so.  Tiie  miraculous 
birth  was  only  the  negative  condition  of  the  spotless  holiness  of  Jesus.     Entering  into 
human  life  in  this  way,  He  was  placed  in  the  normal  condition  of  man  before  his  fall, 
and  put  in  a  position  to  fulfil  the  career  originally  set  before  man,  in  which  he  was  to 
advance    from    innocence   to  holiness.     He    was   simply    freed    from    the  obstacle 
which,  owing  to  the  way  in  which  we  are  born,  hinders  us  from  accomplishing  this 
task,  but  in  order  to  change  this  possibility  into  a  reality,  Jesus  had  to  exert  every 
instant  His  own  free  will,  and  to  devote  Himself  continually  to  the  service  of  good 
and  the  fulfilment  of  the  task  assigned  Him,  namely,  "  the  keeping  of  His  Father's 
commandment."     His  miraculous  birth,  therefore,  in  no  way  prevented  this  conflict 
from  being  real.    It  gave  Him  liberty  not  to  sin,  but  did  not  take  away  from  Him  the 
liberty  of  sinning. 

Mary  did  not  ask  for  a  sign  ;  the  angel  gives  her  one  of  his  own  accord.  This  sign, 
it  is  clear,  is  in  close  connection  with  the  promise  just  made  to  her.  When  she 
beholds  in  Elizabeth  the  realization  of  this  promised  sign,  her  faith  will  be  thoroughly 
confirmed.  'Uov,  behold,  expresses  its  unexpectedness.  Kai  before  avrii,  she  aUo, 
brings  out  the  analogy  between  the  two  facts  thus  brought  together.  Mary's  being 
related  to  Elizabeth  in  no  way  proves,  as  Schleiermaciier  thought,  that  Mary  did  not 
belong  to  the  tribe  of  Judah.  There  was  no  law  to  oblige  an  Israelitish  maiden  to 
marry  into  her  own  tribe  ;  *  Mary's  father,  even  if  he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  might 
therefore  have  espoused  a  woman  of  the  tnbe  of  Levi.  Could  it  be  from  this  passage 
*  Urdess  when  land  was  possessed,  and  she  desired  to  retain  it.  See  ]S'umb. 
36  :  G-8.— J.  H. 


(HA  p.  I.  :  :]u-:)(').  5<j 

that  Keim  derives  his  arsertion,  that  the  priestly  origin  of  Mary  is  indicated  in  Luke 
(1.  'S'34)'i  The  diilive  ;7/p<z  in  tlie  T.  R.  is  only  found  in  some  Mss.  All  the  otlier 
documents  have  y'lpti,  from  the  form  jz/poS. 

In  ver.  o~  the  afigel  refers  the  two  events  tiius  announced  to  to  (lie  common  cause 
Avhich  exphiins  llieni  bolh — the  bouudlcss  omnipotence  of  God.  That  is  the  rock  of 
tulli  'A(Un'(i7f;p  signities,  properly,  to  be  powciiens.  And  j\Ieyer  maiulaius  that  Ihis 
imi.>l  he  its  meaning  here,  and  that  (jJ/fia  is  to  be  taken  in  its  proper  sense  of  irnrd. 
la  lliat  case  we  should  have  to  give  the  preference  to  the  Alex,  reading  touQudv: 
"  Xo  word  proceeding  from  God  shall  remain  powerless."  But  this  meaning  is  fat- 
fct(;hed.  H i/jd  roi)  Ofoy  cannot  depend  naturally  either  on  (n'/ixa  ov  ddwart/aei.  ]Sin\i. 
17  :  20  proves  that  the  verb  uihi'aTdv  also  signifies,  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect,  (o  be 
impossible.  The  sense  therefore  is,  "Nothing  shall  be  impossible."  Yiapa  tCj  Oei^, 
with  God,  indicates  the  sphere  in  which  alone  this  word  is  tiue.  As  though  the 
angel  said.  The  impossible  is  not  divine.  'P'/im,  as  "in"],  a  thing,  in  so  far  as  announced. 
In  reference  to  this  concise  vigorous  cxpiession  of  biblical  supcrnatuialism,  Oosicizee 
says  ;  "  The  laws  of  nature  are  not  chains  which  the  Divine  Legislator  has  laid  upon 
Himself ;  they  are  threads  which  He  holds  in  His  hand,  and  which  He  shortens  or 
lengthens  at  will." 

God's  message  bj'  the  mouth  of  the  angel  was  not  a  command.  The  part  ^Mary 
had  to  fultil  made  no  demands  on  her.  It  only  remained,  therefore,  for  Mary  to  con- 
sent to  the  conse(iuences  of  the  divine  offer.  She  gives  this  consent  in  a  word  at  once 
simple  and  sublime,  which  involved  the  most  extraordinary  act  of  faith  that  a  woman 
ever  consented  to  accomplish.  Mary  accepts  the  saciificc  of  that  which  is  dearer  to  a 
young  maiden  than  her  very  life,  and  thereby  becomes  jjre-emineutly  the  heroine  of 
Lsrael,  the  ideal  daughter  ot  Zion,  the  perfect  type  of  human  receptivity  in  regaid  to 
tiie  divine  work.  We  see  here  what  excjuisite  fruits  the  lengthened  work  of  the  Holy 
Spnit  under  the  old  covenant  had  produced  in  true  Israelites.  The  word  l^ov,  behold, 
does  not  here  express  surprise,  but  rather  the  offer  of  her  entire  being.  Just  as 
Ab;aham,  when  he  answers  God  with,  "  Behold,  here  I  am"  (Gen.  22,  Behold,  ]), 
Maiy  places  herself  at  God's  disposal.  The  evangelist  shows  his  tact  in  the  choice  of 
the  aorist  yiioiro.  The  present  would  have  signified,  "  Let  it  happen  to  me  this  very 
instant  !"     The  aorist  leaves  the  choice  of  the  time  to  God. 

What  exquisite  delicacy  this  scene  displays  !  What  simplicity  and  majesty 
in  the  dialogue!  Xot  one  woivl  too  many,  not  one  too  few.  A  narrative 
s)  perfect  could  only  have  emanated  from  the  holy  sphere  within  which  the 
mysterj'^  was  accomplished.  A  later  origin  wtmld  inevitably  have  betrayed  itstif  by 
some  foreign  element.  Here  the  Protevangeliiirn  of  James,  which  dates  from  the  first 
pait  of  the  second  century  :  "  Fear  not,  said  the  angel  to  Mary  ;  for  thou  hast  found 
giace  before  the  ^Master  of  all  things,  and  thou  shalt  conceive  by  His  word.  Having 
heard  that,  she  doubted  and  said  within  herself  :  Shall  I  conceive  of  the  Lord,  of  the 
living  God,  and  shall  I  give  birth  as  every  woman  gives  birth  ?  And  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  said  to  her,  No,  not  thus,  Mary,  for  the  power  of  God    .     .     ."  etc. 

THIRD    XAURATIVE.— CIIAP.    1  :  39-56. 

Mary's  Visit  to  Elizabeth. 

This  narrative  is,  as  it  were,  the  synthesis  of  the  two  preceding.  These  two 
divinely  favored  women  meet  and  i)our  furlli  their  hearts. 


00 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.    LIKE. 


1.  Arrival  of  Mary  (vers.  30-41)  ;  2.  Elizabeth's  salutation  (vers.  42-45)  •  3    Song 
of  Mary  (vers.  46-55).     Ver.  56  forms  the  hi!>toricaI  conclusion. 

1.   Thearrimlof  Mary;  sexB.Z^d-i\*    The  terms  arc^se and  m<A  7mte  express  a 
lively  eagerness.     This  visit  met  what  was  in  fact  a  deep  need  of  Mary's  soul.    Since 
the  message  of  the  angel,  Elizabeth  had  become  for  her  what  a  mother  is  for  her 
daughler  in  the  most  important  moment  of  her  life.     The  words  in  thoxe  days  com- 
prise the  time  necessary  for  making  preparations  for  the  jouiuey.    Tiie  distance  to  be 
traversed  being  four  days'  journey,  Mary  could  nut  travel  so  far  alone.     The  word  7 
opni.'r,,  the  hill  country,  has  sometimes  received  quite  a  special  meanintr,  making  it  a 
kind  uf  proper  name,  by  which  in  popular  language  the  mountaiuuus  ^p  ateau  to  the 
south  of  Jerusakm  was  designated  ;  but  no  instance  of  a  similar  designation  can  be 
given  either  from  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament.      It  appears  to  me  that  in  this 
expression,  "  a  city  of  Juda  in  the  mountain,"  It  is  in  no  way  necessary  to  give  the 
term  mountain  the  force  of  a  proper  name.     The  context  makes  it  sutQcient'ly  clear 
that  it  is  the  mountain  of  Juda,  in  distinction  from  the  plain  of  Juda,  that  is  meant. 
Comp.  Josh.  15  :  48,  where  ij  bptivri  is  employed  precisely  in  this  way  by  the  LXX. 
According   to   Josh.    15  :  55,  31  :  16.   there  was   in    this   country,  to    tiie   south  of 
Hebron,  a  city  of  the  name  of  Jutha  or  Juttlia  ;  and  according  to  the  second  passage 
(comp.  ver.  13),  this  city   was  a  priestly  city.f     From  this  several  writers  (Reland. 
Winer,  Renau)  have  concluded  that  the  text  of  our  Gospel   has  undeignue  an  altera- 
tion, and  that  the  word  Juda  is  a  corruption  of  Jutha.  But  no  MS.  supports  this 
conjecture  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  require  it.     On  the  contrary,  it  is 
pribable  that,  had  Luke  desired  to  indicate  by  name  the  city  in  which  the  parents  of 
John  the  Baptist  lived,  he  would  have  done  it  sooner.     The  most  important  priestly 
city  of  this  country  was  Hebron,  two  leagues  south  of  Bethlehem.     And  although, 
subsequent  to  the  exile,  the  priests  no  longer  made  it  a  lule  to  reside  exclusively  in 
the  towns  that  liad  been  assigned  to  them  at  the  beginning,  it  is  very  natural  to  look 
for  the  home  of  Zacharias  at  Hebron,  the  more  so  that  rabbinical  tradition  in  the 
Talmud  gives  express  testimony  in  favor  of  this  opinion.:):  Keim  finds  further  support 
for  it  on  this  ground,  that   in   the  context  tvoThc  'lowk  can  only  signify  the  citj-   of 
Juda,  that  is  t')  say,  the  principal  priestly  city  in  Juda.     But  wrongly  ;  the  simplest 
and  most  natural  translation  is  :  a  city  of  Juda. 

The  detail,  she  entered  into  the  house,  serves  to  put  the  reader  in  sympathy  with  the 
emotion  of  Mary  at  the  moment  of  her  arrival.  With  her  first  glance  at  Elizabeth 
she  recognizes  the  truth  of  the  sign  that  had  been  given  her  by  the  angel,  and  at  this 
sight  the  promise  she  had  her.-elf  leceived  acquues  a  staitling  reality.  Often  a  very 
little  thing  suffices  to  make  a  divine  thought,  which  had  previously  only  been  con- 
ceived as  an  idea,  take  distinct  form  and  life  within  us.  And  the  expression  we  have 
used  is  perhaps,  in  this  case,  more  than  a  simple  metaphor.  It  is  not  suipiising  that 
the  intense  feeling  produced  in  Mary  by  the  sight  of  Elizabeth  should  have  reac'ed 
immediately  on  the  latter.  The  unexpected  arrival  of  this  young  maiden  at  such  a 
solemn  moment  for  herself,  the  connection  which  she  instantly  divines  between  the 
miraculous  blessing  of  wdiich  she  had  just  been  tlie  object  and  this  fxtianrdinary  vi.^jt, 
the  affecting  tones  of  the  voice  and  holy  elevation  of  this  person,  producing  all  the 

*  Ver.  40,  ihand  some  Mnn.,  add  n'  aya71innEL  after  /S/irpo?  (taken  from  ver.  44V 
f  According  to  "Robinson,  it  is  at  the  present  day  u  village  named  Jutta.     The 
name  in  the  LXX.  is  Ha. 

X  Olhon,  "  Lexicon  rabbinicum, "  p.  334. 


CM  AT.   I.  :  4;*- IT).  (11 

impression  of  some  celestial  apparition,  naturally  predisposed  her  to  receive  the  illii- 
nuiialiou  of  the  Spirit.  The  emotion  which  possesses  her  is  communicated  to  tlie 
child  whose  life  is  as  yet  one  wilh  her  own  ;  and  at  the  sudden  leapin-r  of  this  beiiiy, 
will)  she  knows  is  compassed  about  by  special  blessing,  the  veil  is  rent.  The  llolv 
Spirit,  the  prophelic  Spirit  of  the  old  covenant,  seizes  her,  and  she  salutes  Mary  as 
the  mother  of  the  Messiah. 

3.  The  salnlatioii  of  Elizabeth:  vers.  42-45.*  "  And  she  spake  out  wilh  a  loud 
voice,  and  said,  Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and  blessed  is  the  fr;iit  of  Ihy 
•womb.  43.  And  whence  is  this  to  me,  that  the  mother  of  my  Lord  should  come  to 
me  V  44  For,  lo,  as  soon  as  the  voice  of  thy  salulalion  sounded  in  mine  ears,  the  babe 
leaped  in  my  womb  for  joy,  45  And  blessed  is  she  that  believed  :  for  there  shall  be  a 
performance  of  tiiose  things  which  were  told  her  from  the  Lord."  The  course  of 
Elizabclli's  IhousrJii  is  this  :  first  of  all,  Mary  and  the  son  of  Mary  (ver.42) ;  next  Eliza 
belh  herself  and  her  son  (vers.  43,  44)  ;  lastly,  Mary  and  her  liupi)iiie.ss.  The  char 
aclerislic  of  all  true  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  tlie annihilation  of  liic  i)roper  individ- 
uality of  the  person  who  is  the  instrument  of  it,  and  the  elevation  of  his  personal  feel- 
int;s  lo  the  height  of  the  divine  word.  This  is  precisely  the  character  of  Elizabeths 
salutation  ;  we  shall  find  it  the  same  in  the  song  of  Zachurias.  Thus  the  truth  of  this 
word.  "  Elizabeth  was  filled  wilh  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  justified  i)y  this  very  fact.  The 
reading  of  some  Alexandrians,  ave^uTjnsv,  would  indicate  a  cry,  instead  of  a  simple 
breaking  forth  into  speech.  The  reading  Kpavyij  of  three  other  Alex,  would  have  the 
same  meaning.  They  both  savor  of  exaggeration.  In  any  case  both  could  not  be  ad- 
milted  together.  We  may  translate,  "Blessed  art  thou,"  or  "Blessed  be  thou." 
The  former  translation  is  best  ;  for  exclamation  is  more  in  place  here  than  a  wish. 
The  superlative  form,  blessed  among,  is  not  unknown  to  classical  Greek.  The  ex- 
pression, "  the  fruit  of  thy  womb,"  appears  to  imply  the  tact  of  the  incarnation  was 
already  accomplished  ;  so  also  does  the  expression,  "  the  mother  of  my  Lord"  (vcr.  43)- 
'li>a,  in  order  that  (ver.  43),  may  keep  its  ordinnry  meaning  :  "  What  have  I  done  in 
order  that  this  blessing  might  come  to  me  '?"  This  'iva  is  used  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  divine  intention.  From  Mary  and  her  Son,  her  thought  glances  to  herself  and 
her  own  child.  In  calling  3Iary  "  the  mother  of  my  Lord,"  she  declares  herself  the 
servant  of  the  Slessiah,  and  consequently  of  His  mother  also.  Everything  of  a  sub- 
lime chaiacter  springs  from  a  deeper  source  than  the  understanding.  The  leaping  of 
John,  a  prelude  of  the  work  of  his  life,  belongs  to  the  unfathomable  depths  of  instinc- 
tive life.  Elizabeth  sees  in  it  a  sign  of  the  truth  of  the  presentiment  she  felt  as  soon 
as  she  saw  Mary. 

At  ver.  45  she  reverts  to  Mary.  The  expression  blessed  is  doubtless  inspiivd 
by  the  contemplation  of  the  calm  happiness  that  irradiates  tiie  figure  of  the  young 
mother.  'On  cannot  be  taken  here  in  the  sense  of  because  ;  for  the  word  nioTeinacn, 
she  that  believed,  in  order  that  it  may  have  its  full  force,  must  not  govern  anyliiing. 
"  Blessed  is  she  that,  at  the  critical  moment,  could  exercise  faith  (the  aorist)  1"  De 
Wette,  Bleek,  Meyer,  think  that  the  proposition  which  follows  should  depend  on 
niaTEvnaaa  :  "  she  7cho  believed  that  the  things  .  .  .  would  have  their  accomplish- 
ment     The  two  former,  because  aoi  would  be  necessary  in  place  of  avT^  ;  the  third, 

*  Ver.  42  i*.  C.  F.  several  Mnn.,  read  aveSoTjnev,  instead  of  avKbuvrjin',  which  is  the 
reading  of  T  R.  with  all  the  rest.  B.  L.  Z.  and  Oiigea  (three  times  read  Knavyi)  in 
place  of  ouvv. 


C2  COMMK.VTAin'    ()>f    ST.    LUKE. 

because  all  that  had  been  promised  to  Mary  was  already  accomplished.  But  Eliza- 
beth's thought  loses  itself  ia  a  kind  of  meditation,  and  her  words,  ceasing  to  be  au 
apostrophe  to  Mary,  become  a  hymn  of  faith.  This  accounts  for  the  use  of  a  pro- 
noun of  the  third  person.  As  to  Meyer,  he  forgets  that  the  accomplishment  is  onl\' 
just  begun,  and  is  far  from  being  completed.  The  glorification  of  the  Messiah  and  of 
Israel  still  remains  to  be  accomplished.  TeAeiwatS  denotes  this  complete  accomplish- 
ment. But  how  could  Elizabeth  speak  of  the  kind  of  things  which  had  been  prom- 
ised to  Mary  ?  What  had  passed  between  the  angel  and  Zachaiias  had  enlightened 
her  respecting  the  similar  things  that  must  have  taken  place  between  Heaven  and 
Mary. 

3.  The  song  of  Mary  :  vers.  46-56.  Elizabeth's  salutation  -was  full  of  excitement 
(she  spake  out  with  ,a  loud  voice),  but  Mary's  hymn  breathes  a  sentiment  of  deep 
inward  repose.  The  greater  happiness  is,  the  calmer  it  is.  So  Luke  says  simply, 
hItte,  she  said.  A  majesty  truly  regal  reigns  throughout  this  canticle.  Mary  describes 
tir.st  her  actual  impressions  (vers.  46-48«)  ;  thence  she  rises  to  the  divine  fact  which  is 
the  cause  of  them  (vers.  48Z/-50)  ;  she  next  contemplates  the  development  of  the  his- 
torical consequences  contained  in  it  (vers.  51-53);  lastly,  she  celebrates  themoial 
necessity  of  this  fact  as  the  accomplishment  of  God's  ancient  promises  to  His  people 
(vers.  54  and  55).  The  tone  of  the  first  strophe  has  a  sweet  and  calm  solemuit3^  It 
becomes  more  animated  in  the  second,  in  which  Mary  contemplates  the  work  of  the 
Most  High.  It  attains  its  full  height  and  energy  in  the  third,  as  Mary  contemplates 
the  immense  revolution  of  which  this  w^ork  is  the  begiuuing  and  cause.  Her  song 
drops  down  and  returns  to  its  nest  in  the  fourth,  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  amen  of  the 
Civiiticle.  This  hymn  is  closelj^  allied  to  that  of  the  mother  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  2),  and 
contain.s  scperal  sentences  taken  from  the  book  of  Psalms.  Is  it,  as  some  have  main- 
tained, destitute  of  all  originality  on  this  account  V  By  no  means.  There  is  a  veiy 
marked  difference  between  Flannah's  song  of  triumph  and  Mary's.  While  Mary  cele- 
brates her  happiness  with  deep  humility  and  holy  restraint,  Hannah  surrenders  lierself 
completely  to  the  feeling  of  personal  Iriuinph  ;  with  her  very  first  words  she  breaks 
forth  into  tries  of  indignation  against  her  enemies.  As  to  the  borrowed  biblical 
phrases,  JVfaiy  gives  to  these  consecrated  v/ords  an  entirely  new  meaning  and  a  higher 
application.  The  prophets  frequently  deal  in  this  way  with  the  words  of  their  pred- 
ecessor.?. By  this  means  these  organs  of  the  Spirit  exhilnt  the  contirmity  and  prog- 
ress of  the  divine  work.  Criticism  asks  whether  Mary  turned  over  the  leaves  of 
her  Bible  before  she  spoke.  It  forgets  that  every  young  Israelite  knew  by  heart  from 
childhood  the  songs  of  Hannah,  Deborah,  and  David  ;  that  they  sang  them  as  they 
went  up  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  the  singing  of  psalms  was  the  daily 
accompaniment  of  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice,  as  well  as  one  of  the  essential 
observances  of  the  passovcr  meal. 

Vers.  46-55."  "And  Mary  said.  My  soul  doth  magnify  the  Lord.     47.  And  my 

*  Ver.  46.  Three  mss.  of  the  Italic,  a.  b.  1..  read  Elizabeth  instead  of  Mary. 
Iren?ens,  at  least  in  the  Latin  translation,  follows  tiiis  reading  ;  ntid  Oii^-en  (Latin 
translation)  speaks  of  mss.  in  which  it  was  found  Yer.  49.  ii.  B.  D.  L.  read  /iFya'/.a 
instpad  of  fxeya/eta,  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  ;32Mjj.  and  all  theMnn.  Yer.  50.  B.  C 
L.  Z.  read  eii  yeveaS  kcu  yeveai  ;  ii.  F.  31.  O.  and  seveial  Mnn.,  etS  yevsar  Kai.  yrreav, 
ir.  place  of  eii  ytvsnc,  yeveuv.  which  is  the  reading  of  12  Mjj.  and  most  of  the  Mnti. 
Ver.  5L  !!^'=''  E.  F.  H.  O*.  O^  and  some  Mnn.  read  diavoLai  instead  of  Atavoin.  Ver. 
55.  C.  F.  M.  O.  S.  60  Mnn.  read  ew?  ntuvoi  instead  of  ecS  tov  CMva.  Ver.  56.  !*.  B. 
L.  Z,  read  (j5  instead  of  wjfi.     D.  l!,i'i<-''4"<-   Or.,  omit  it. 


ciiAi'.  [.  :  4 (')-:):).  c;} 

epirit  hiith  rejoiced  in  God  mj'  Saviour.  48a.  For  he  hath  regarded  the  low  estate  of 
his  liatuhnaidi'u. 

"  iHb.  For,  behold,  from  henceforth  all  neuerations  shall  call  nic  bles.sed.  4d.  For 
he  tliat  is  niighty  hath  done  to  mo  great  things  ;  and  holy  is  his  name.  50.  And  his 
mercy  is  on  tliem  that  fear  him  from  generation  to  generation. 

"  51.  He  haili  siiDwed  strength  with  his  arm  ;  he  hath  scattered  the  proud  in  the 
irnaginali>>n  of  their  hearts.  52.  He  hath  put  down  the  mighty  from  their  .seals,  and 
cxalled  tliem  of  low  degree.  511  Ho  hath  tilled  the  hungry  with  good  things,  and 
the  rich  he  hath  sent  empty  away. 

"  54.  He  hath  holpeu  his  servant  Israel,  in  remembrance  of  his  mercy  ;  53.  (As  he 
spake  to  our  fathers),  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed  for  ever." 

Vers.  46-48(1.  The  contrast  between  the  tone  of  this  canticle  and  Elizabeth's  dis- 
course forbids  the  adnussion  of  the  itading  of  some  Latin  authoriti's  which  puts  it  in 
the  mouth  of  the  latter.  It  is,  indeed,  Mary's  reply  to  the  congialulalions  of  Eliza- 
beth. Luke  does  not  say  tiiat  Mary  was  filled  with  the  Spirit  (comp.  ver.  41).  At 
this  epoch  of  her  life  she  dwelt  habitually  in  a  divine  atmosphere,  wliile  the  ins[)ira- 
lion  of  E!i/abc'lh  was  only  momentary.  Her  first  word,  fieya'Awst,  maynifies,  fully 
expresses  this  state  of  her  soul.  In  what,  indeed,  does  the  magnifying  of  the  Divine 
Ueing,  consist,  if  not  in  giving  Him,  by  constant  adoration  (the  verb  is  in  the  present 
tense),  a  larger  place  in  one's  own  heart  and  in  the  hearts  of  men  ?  The  present, 
magnifies,  is  in  contrast  with  the  aorist,  rejoiced,  in  the  following  sentence.  Some 
would  give  the  aorist  here  the  sense  which  this  tense  sometimes  has  in  Greek,  that  of 
a  repetition  of  the  act.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  regard  it  as  an  allu.sion  to  a 
pailieular  fact,  which  kindled  in  her  a  joy  that  was  altogether  peculiar.  The  seat  of 
this  emotion  was  her  spirit — Trveifia,  spirit.  When  the  human  spirit  is  referred  to  in 
Scripture,  the  word  indicates  the  deepest  part  of  our  humanity,  the  point  of  contact 
between  msm  and  God.  The  soul  is  the  actual  centre  of  human  life,  the  principle  of 
individuality,  and  the  seat  of  those  impressions  which  are  of  an  essentially  personal 
character.  This  soul  communicates,  through  the  two  organs  with  which  it  is  en- 
dowed, the  spirit  and  the  body,  with  two  worlds — the  one  above,  the  other  below  it — 
with  the  divine  world  and  the  world  of  nature.  Thus,  while  the  expression,  "My 
soul  doth  magnify,"  refers  to  the  personal  emotions  of  Mary,  to  her  feelings  as  a 
woman  and  a  mother,  all  which  lind  an  outlet  in  adoration,  these  words,  "  My  spirit 
hath  rejoiced,"  appear  to  indicate  the  moment  wOien,  in  theprofoundest  depths  of  her 
being,  by  the  touch  of  the  Diviuc  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  angel  was  accomplished 
in  her.  These  two  sentences  contain  yet  a  third  contrast  :  The  Lord  whom  she  mag- 
nifies is  the  Master  of  the  service  to  which  she  is  absolutely  devoted  ;  the  Saviour  in 
whom  she  has  rejoiced  is  that,  mercifid  God  who  has  made  her  feel  His  restDring 
power,  and  who  in  her  person  has  just  saved  fallen  humanity.  Further,  it  is  tiiis 
divine  compassion  which  she  celebrates  in  the  following  words,  ver.  48.  What  did 
He  find  in  her  which  supplied  sulficient  grounds  for  such  a  favor?  One  thing  alone 
— her  low  estate.  Torre/iucts  does  not  denote,  as  Taneivonjc  does,  the  moral  dispo- 
sition of  humiliiy  ;  Mary  does  not  boast  of  her  humility.  It  is  rather,  as  the  form  of 
the  word  indicates,  an  act  of  which  she  had  been  the  object,  the  humbling  influence 
under  which  she  had  been  brought  by  her  social  posititm,  and  by  the  whole  circum- 
stances which  had  reduced  her,  a  daughter  of  kings,  to  the  rank  of  the  poorest  of  the 
daughters  of  Israel.  Perhaps  the  inteival  between  the  moment  of  the  incarnation, 
denoted  by  the  aorists  Ituth  rejoiced,  luilh  regarded,  and  that  in  whicii  she  thus  cele- 


64  COMMl-NTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

braled  it,  was  uot  very  great.  "Was  not  that  tlirilling  moment,  when  she  entered  the 
house  of  Zachanas,  and  beheld  at  a  ghmce  in  t)ie  person  ot  Elizabeth  the  fiiltilmciil 
of  the  si^n  given  her  b}'  the  angel,  the  moment  of  supreme  divine  maniftbtaliuu 
towaid  herself  ?  The  expression,  Behuld,  liciiceforlh,  wiiich  commences  the  following 
strophe,  thus  becomes  full  of  meaning. 

Vers.  48i-50.  The  greatness  of  her  happiness  appears  in  the  renown  which  it  will 
bring  her  ;  hence  the  yap.  for.  The  word  hehvUl  refers  to  the  unexpected  character  of 
this  dealing.  Mary  ascribes  to  God,  as  its  author,  the  fact  which  she  celebrates,  and 
glorifies  the  three  divine  perfections  displayed  in  it.  And  tirsi  the  power.  In  call- 
ing God  the  Almighty,  she  appears  to  make  direct  allusion  to  the  expression  of  the 
angel  :  the  power  of  the  Highest  (ver.  35).  Here  is  an  art  in  which  is  displayed,  as  in 
no  other  siuce  the  appearam-e  of  man,  the  creative  power  of  God.  The  received 
re-di\'n\]s  t-teya'XEla  answers  better  than  the  reading  of  some  Alex., /if} a'/.n,  to  the  em- 
phatic term  ri^^*7Cj,  which  Luke  doubtless  read  in  his  Hebrew  document  (comp.  Acts 
2  :  11).  But  tills  omnipotence  is  not  of  a  purely  physical  character  ;  it  is  subservient 
to  holiness.  This  is  the  second  perfection  which  Mary  celebrates.  She  felt  herself, 
in  this  marvellous  work,  in  immediate  contact  with  supreme  holiness  ;  and  she  well 
knew  that  this  perfection  more  than  any  other  constitutes  the  essence  of  God  :  His 
name  is  holy^  The  name  is  the  sign  of  an  object  in  the  mind  which  knows  it.  The 
name  of  Ood  Ihetefore  denotes,  not  llie  Divine  Being,  but  the  more  or  less  adequate 
reflection  of  Him  in  those  intelligences  which  are  in  communion  with  Him.  Hence 
we  see  how  this  nnme  can  be  sauclified,  rendered  holy.  The  essential  nature  of  God 
may  be  more  clearly  understood  by  His  creatures,  and  more  completely  disengaged 
from  those  clouds  which  have  hitherto  obscured  it  in  their  minds.  Thus  Maiy  had 
received,  in  the  experience  she  had  just  passed  through,  a  new  revelation  of  the  holi- 
ness of  the  Divine  Being.  This  short  sentence  is  not  dependent  on  the  6rt,  because, 
which  governs  the  preceding.  For  the  Kai,  and,  which  follows,  establishes  a  close 
connection  between  it  and  ver.  ^O,  which,  if  subordinated  to  ver.  4!),  would  be  too 
drawn  out.  This  feature  of  holiness  which  Mary  so  forcibly  expresses,  is,  in  fact, 
that  which  distinguishes  the  incarnation  from  all  the  analogous  facts  of  heathen  my- 
thologies. 

The  third  divine  perfection  celebrated  by  Mary  is  mercy  (ver.  50).  Mary  has 
already  sung  its  praise  in  ver.  48  in  relation  to  herself.  She  speaks  of  it  here  in  a 
more  general  way.  By  them  that  fear  God,  she  intends  more  especially  Zacbaiias  and 
Elizabeth,  there  present  before  her;  then  all  the  members  of  her  people  who  share 
with  them  this  fundamental  trait  of  Jewish  piety,  and  who  thus  constitute  the  true 
Israel.  The  received  reading  eig  yevedi  ysveuv,  from  generation  to  generation,  is  a 
form  of  the  superlative  which  is  found  in  the  expression  to  the  age  of  the  ages,  the 
meaning  of  which  is  "to  the  most  remote  generations."  The  two  other  readings 
mentioned  in  the  critical  notes  express  continuity  rather  than  remoteness  in  time. 
These  words,  "on  them  that  fear  him,"  are  the  transition  to  the  third  strophe. 
For  they  implicitly  contain  the  antithesis  which  comes  out  in  the  verses  following. 

Vers.  51 -53.  A  much  more  sti'ongly  marked  poetical  parallelism  characterizes  this 
strophe.  IVlary  here  describes  with  a  thrill  of  emotion,  of  which  even  her  language 
partakes,  the  great  Messianic  revolution,  the  commencement  of  which  she  was  be- 
holding at  that  very  time.  In  the  choice  God  had  made  of  two  pei'sons  of  such  hum- 
ble condition  in  life  as  herself  and  her  cousin,  she  saw  at  a  glance  the  great  principle 
which  would  regulate  the  impending  renewal  of  all  things.     It  is  to  be  a  complete 


CHAP.    1.  :  o'*-r)(J.  05 

reversal  of  the  Lumun  notions  of  greatness  and  meanness.  The  poor  and  the  hungrj 
are  evidcnily  the  IsimiVuesfiarini/  God  of  ver.  50.  iSiich  e"^pressious  cannot  apply  to 
Israel  as  a  whole — to  the  pruud  Pharisees  and  rieh  yadilucees,  for  example.  The  line 
of  denial cal ion  which  she  draws  in  these  words  passes,  tiierefore.  not  between  the 
Jews  and  Oeulilcs,  but  between  the  pious  Isiaelites  ami  all  that  e.\'iU  themselves  agaiiiit 
God,  whether  in  or  beyou<l  laracl.  The  proud,  Ihenughty,  and  thi,-  iicli  denote  llcio.l 
and  his  cuuit,  the  Pharisees  anil  the  Sadducees,  as  well  as  the  fuicigu  oppressois, 
CiCsar  and  his  armies,  and  all  the  powers  of  heathendom.  The  uorists  of  these  thiee 
verses  indicate,  acci)rdiug  to  r»leek,  the  repi'.liliou  of  the  act ;  so  h(!  translates  them 
by  the  present.  I  rather  think  that  to  Mary's  eyes  the  catastrophe  presents  itself  as 
already  consummated  in  the  act  which  God  had  just  accomplished.  Does  not  this 
act  c.;maiii  tiie  piinciple  of  the  rejection  of  all  that  is  exalted  in  the  world,  and  of  the 
choice  of  whatever  in  human  estimation  is  brought  low  "/  All  these  divine  acts  which 
are  about  to  follow,  one  after  another,  will  only  be  a  further  application  of  the  same 
principle.  They  are  virtually  contained  in  that  which  Mary  celebrates.  C'onse. 
quently  the  aorists  are  properly  translated  by  the  past.  The  tirst  proposition  of  ver- 
51  applies  to  the  righteous  and  wicked  alike.  Still  the  former  of  these  two  applica- 
tions predominates  (ver  50).  The  arm  is  the  symbol  of  force.  The  expression  ttouih 
Kparoi,  to  make drength,  is  a  Hebraism.  pTi  ntl^J/  (P^-  H'^  '  15).  The  LXX.  tianslate 
it  by  Tote'iv  dvvoftiv.  If  it  was  Luke  who  translated  the  Hebrew  document  into  Greek, 
it  is  evident  that  he  kept  his  version  independent  of  the  LXX.  The  favor  God  shows 
to  the  righteous  has  its  necessary  counterpart  in  the  overthrow  of  the  wicked.  This 
is  the  connection  of  the  second  proposition.  The  expression  v-epTjodi'ovi  6iavo  a, 
proud  ill  ihoufjld,  answers  to  n^  ''n^nX(F'^  76  •  C)  ;  the  LXX.  translate  this  expression 
by  hnvvETOL  tI)  Knp(^:(i.  The  dative  6iapo:a  defines  the  adjective;  "the  proud  in 
thought,  who  exalt  themselves  in  their  thoughts."  Mar^'  represents  all  these  as 
forming  an  opposing  host  to  men  that  fear  God  ;  hence  the  expression  scatter.  Wilh 
the  reading  diavoiac,  v-ei)>](^uv(jvi  is  the  epithet  of  the  substantive,  proud  ihour/ht.s. 
This  reading  is  evidently  a  mi-take. 

Ver.  52.  From  the  moral  contrast  between  the  proud  and  the  faithful,  Mary  passes 
to  a  contrast  of  their  social  position,  the  mighty  and  those  of  low  degree.  The  former 
are  Ibose  who  reign  without  that  spiiit  of  luiniility  which  is  inspired  by  the  fear  at 
Jehovah.  The  thiid  antithesis  (ver.  53),  which  is  connected  with  the  preceding,  is 
that  of  suffering  and  prospc^it3^  The  hungry  represent  the  class  which  toils  for  a 
living — artisans,  like  Joseph  and  Mar}'  ;  the  rich  are  men  gorged  with  wealth,  Israel- 
ites or  heathen,  who,  in  the  use  they  make  of  God's  gifts,  entirely  forg(;t  their  di-- 
pendence  and  responsibility.  The  abundance  which  is  to  compensate  the  foimer  cci- 
tainly  consists— the  contrast  requires  it — of  temporal  enjoyments.  But  friiice  this 
abundance  is  an  effect  of  the  divine  blessing,  it  implies,  as  its  condition,  the  posse.-siou 
of  spiiitual  graces.  For,  from  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view,  prosperity  is  only  a 
snare,  when  it  does  not  lest  on  the  foundation  of  i)eace  wilh  Gud.  And  so  also,  the 
spoliation  which  is  to  I)efall  the  rich  is  without  doubt  the  loss  of  their  temporal  ad 
vauiages.  But  what  makes  this  loss  a  real  evil  is,  that  it  is  the  effect  of  a  divine 
curse  upon  their  pride. 

The  poetic  beauty  of  these  three  verses  is  heightened  by  a  crossing  of  the  members 
of  the  three  antitheses,  which  is  substituted  for  the  ordinary  method  of  symmetrical 
parallelism.  In  the  first  contrast  (ver.  51),  the  righteous  occupy  the  first  place,  tho 
proud  the  second  ;  in  the  second,  on  the  contrary  (ver.  52),  the  mi^jht}'  occupy  the 


CO  CUilMENTAKY    UX    ST.   LUKE. 

first  place,  so  as  to  be  in  close  connection  with  the  proud  of  vtr.  HI.  and  the  lowly 
the  second  ;  in  tlie  third  (ver.  Go),  the  hungry  come  tirst,  juiuiiig  themselves  wilh  the 
lowly  of  ver.  52,  and  the  rich  form  the  second  member.  Tire  mmd  passes  in  this 
"Way,  as  it  Avere,  on  the  crest  of  a  Avave,  fiom  like  to  like,  and  the  taste  is  not 
offended,  as  it  would  have  been  by  a  symmetrical  ariangemeut  in  which  the  homo- 
geneous members  of  the  contrast  occurred  every  time  in  the  same  order. 

Vers.  54-,  55.  Mary  celebrates  in  this  last  strophe  the  faithfulness  of  God.  That,  in 
fact,  is  Ihe  foundation  of  the  whole  JVIessiauic  work.  If  the  preceding  strophe  un- 
veils to  us  the  future  developments  of  this  woik,  this  sends  us  back  to  its  beginning 
in  the  remote  past.  Uaii  signifies  here  servant  rather  than  son.  It  is  an  abusion  to 
the  title  of  Israel,  servant  of  the  Lord  (Isa.  41  :  8).  The  jMaster  sees  His  well-beloved 
servant  ciushed  beneath  the  burden  which  his  pitiless  oppiessors  have  imposed,  and 
he  lakes  it  upon  himself  (middle  'Aau^aveaOai)  in  order  to  comfort  him  {ami).  This 
term,  l.vael,  Jus  servant,  seems  at  first  sight  to  apply  to  the  whole  people  ;  and  doubt- 
iess  it  is  this  explanation  that  has  led  several  interpreters  to  apply  the  expressions, 
proud,  mighty,  rich,  in  (he  preceding  verses,  solely  to  foreign  oppressors.  If,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  latter  explanation  cannot  be  maintained,  we  must  conclurle  that  by 
this  Israel,  the  servant  of  God,  Mary  underslauds  the  God-fearing  Isiaeliles  of  the 
fiflitlh  verso,  not  as  individuals,  but  as  the  true  representatives  of  the  nation  itself. 
Tlie  faithful  portion  of  the  nation  is  identified  in  this  expression  with  the  nation  as 
a  whole,  because  it  is  its  true  substance  ;  besides,  ]Mary  could  not  know  beforehand 
how  far  this  true  Israel  would  corresptmd  with  the  actual  people.  For  her  own  part, 
she  already  sees  in  hope  (aorist  ap-t/fi^ero)  the  normal  Israel  Irausfoimed  into  the 
glorified  Messianic  nation.  Would  such  a  view  as  this  have  been  possible  when  once 
tlie  national  unbelief  had  apparently  foiled  all  these  Messianic  hopes  ?  There  is  noth- 
ing here  to  hinder  the  infinitive  of  the  end,  nvj^adfivai,  from  preserving  its  proper 
meaning.  To  remember  his  promises  ^xgrnfm?,,  in  order  not  t.;beuufaitlifLil.  Eiasnuis, 
Calvin,  and  others  regard  the  datives  tC)  'Ai3pau/i  and  ri^  airefifiaTi  as  governed  by  tA- 
iT/nat,  in  apposition  with  wpoS  roi)5  xarfpac:  ''  As  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to  Abra- 
ham, and  to  his  seed  ,  "  But  this  construction  is  forced  and  inadmissible. 
Besides,  the  last  words,  for  ever,  if  referred  to  the  verb  He  spake,  would  have  no 
nieaning.  Therefore  we  must  m^dce  the  proposition,  as  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  a 
parenthesis  intended  to  recall  the  divine  faithfulness,  and  refer  the  datives,  to  Abra- 
ham and  to  his  seed,  to  the  verb,  to  remember  his  mercy.  It  is  the  dative  of  favor,  to 
remember  toward  Abraham  and  .  .  .  For  Abraham,  as  well  as  his  race,  enjoys 
tlie  mercy  which  is  shown  to  the  latter  (comp.  ver.  17).  The  words  forever  qualify 
the  idea,  not  to  forget  his  mercy.  Divine  forgetfulness  will  never  cause  the  favor 
premised  to  Israel  to  cease.  Would  any  poet  have  ever  put  such  words  into  the 
mouth  of  Mary,  when  Jerusalem  was  in  ruins  and  its  people  dispersed  ? 

Ver.  56.  is  a  historical  conclusion.  Did  the  depaiture  of  jNIary  take  place  before 
the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist  ?  We  might  suppose  so  from  the  particle  (St  and  the  aoi  ist 
fTT/r/rjO;?  (ver.  57),  which  very  naturally  imply  a  histoiical  succession.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  would  be  hardly  natural  that  Mary  should  leave  at  a  time  when  the 
fxpected  deliverance  of  Elizabeth  was  so  rwwv  at  band.  This  verse,  therefore,  must 
be  regarded  as  a  h'storical  anticipation,  such  as  is  frequently  found  in  Luke.  Comp. 
1  .  65^  3  :  19,  20,  etc. 


CHAP.   I.  :  oT-SO.  CT 

lcX)lTRTII   NAnRATIVE.  — CHAP.    1:57-80. 

Birth  and  Circumcision  of  John  the  Baptist. 

Kere  opens  the  second  cycle  of  the  narratives  of  the  infancy.  Tliis first  narration 
comprises—!.  Tiie  hirih  of  .Tnlm  (vers.  57,  58);  2.  Tlie  circiimcision  of  the  child 
(vers.  59-G(J)  ;  o.  The  soui;  of  Zacharias,  with  a  short  historical  conclusion  (vers. 
67-80). 

1.  Birth  of  J.)hn  :  vrr?.  57  and  58.  These  verses  are  like  a  pleasing  picture  of  Jew- 
ish Iiome  life.  "We  see  the  neighhors  and  relations  arriving  one  after  the  other — the 
former  first,  because  they  live  nearest.  Elizabeth,  the  happy  mother,  is  the  central 
figure  uf  the  scene  ;  every  one  comes  up  to  her  in  turn  'K/ieyu2.vve  fier'  avTtji,  literally', 
he  hid  nntf/iiifwd  with  her,  is  a  Hebraistic  expression  (^y  7"12m  :  comp.  1  Sam.  12  :  24 
in  the  LXX.).  This  use  of  ueTo.,  with,  comes  from  the  fact  that  man  is  in  such  cases 
the  material  which  concurs  in  the  result  of  the  divine  action. 

2.  Circumcision  of  John  :  vers.  59-GG.*  As  an  Israelitish  child  by  its  birth  became 
a  member  of  the  human  family,  so  by  circumcision,  on  the  corresponding  day  of  the 
following  week,  he  was  incorporated  into  the  covenant  (Gen.  17)  ;  and  it  was  the  cus- 
tom on  tills  occasion  to  give  him  his  name.  The  subject  of  if/Oov,  crime,  is  that  of 
the  preceding  verse.  It  has  been  maintained  that  the  text  suggests  something  miracu- 
lous in  the  agreement  of  Elizabeth  and  Zacharias  ;  as  if,  during  the  nine  months 
which  had  just  passed  away,  the  father  had  not  made  to  the  mother  a  hundred  times 
over  tlie  communication  which  he  presently  irakes  to  all  present  (ver.  G3)  j  Ha"\v 
mall}'  times  already,  especiall)'  during  Mary's  stay  in  their  liouse,  must  the  names  of 
John  and  Jesus  have  been  mentioned  !  It  has  been  inferred  from  the  words,  tliey 
made  i<i;/ns  to  him  (ver.  G2),  that  Zaclinrias  became  deaf  as  well  as  dumb.  But  the 
case  of  Zacharias  cannot  be  assimilated  to  that  of  deaf  mutes  from  their  birth,  in  whom 
dumbness  ordinarily  results  from  deafness.  The  whole  scene,  on  the  contrary,  im- 
plies that  Z  icharias  had  heard  everything.  The  use  of  the  language  of  signs  proceeds 
simply  from  this,  that  wo  instinctively  adopt  this  means  of  communication  toward 
those  who  can  speak  in  no  other  way. 

Ver.  63.  The  word  ?-f  j'uv  a  ided  to  eypai^cv  is  a  Hebraism  (-^^^X?  2n''1.  ^  Kings  10  . 
6),  the  meaning  of  which  i.s,  "  deciding  the  question."  The  expression,  his  name  it, 
points  to  a  higher  authority  wiiicli  has  so  determined  it  ;  and  it  is  this  circumstanpo, 
rather  than  the  agreement  between  the  father  and  mother — a  fact  so  easily  explained 
— which  astonishes  the  persons  present.  Every  one  recalls  on  this  occasion  the 
strange  events  which  had  preceded  the  birth  of  the  child. 

Yer.  G4.  Zacharias,  thus  obedient,  recovers  his  .speech,  of  which  his  want  of  faith 
liad  deprived  him.  The  verb  (iv£ux^jj),was  opened,  does  not  agree  with  the  second 
subject,  the  tongue,  for  which  the  verb  was  loosed,  taken  from  the  preceding  verb, 
must  be  supplied.  In  the  words,  h^  spalce  and  praised  Ood,  naturally  it  is  on  the 
word  spake  that  the  emphasis  rests,  in  opposition  to  his  previous  dumbness.  The 
last  words  are  only  an  appendix  serving  to  Introduce  the  song  which  follows.  Wc 
must  therefore  refrain  from  trauslatinir,  Avilh  Ostervuld,  "  He  spake  by  praising 
God." 

*  Ver.  61.  !*.  A.  B.  C.  L.  A.  A.  Z.  IT.  and  .some  Mnn.  read  tK  rrjc  trvyyei'eta';,  in  place 
of  ev  TT/  avyyeveia,  the  rending  of  T.  R. ,  witii  11  Mjj.,  the  greater  part  of  tlie  Mnn. 
8yr.  It.  Ver.  G2.  !*.  B.  D.  F.  G.,  avro  in  place  of  avrov.  Ver.  G5.  ii*  reads  ^la  ra 
lustcad  of  f^ieX  k'/.el-o  rravTu  -a.     Ver.  GG.  St.  B.  C.  D.  L.  It.  Vg.  add  }ap  after  nai. 


68  COMMKXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Vcr.  65.  At  Ihc  sight  of  this  miracle,  surprise  changes  into  fe-ar.  And  this  im- 
pression spreads  abroad,  with  the  report  of  these  facts,  ihrougliout  all  Ihe  country. 
That  is  more  especially  the  sense  of  the  reading  of  i^,  which,  however,  from  a  critical 
point  uf  view,  it  is  impossible  to  adopt.  Yer.  GG.  They  not  merely  told,  they  laid  to 
beait;  these  were  the  first  emotions  of  the  Messianic  era.  The  Alex,  reading,  ard 
ydp,  for  also  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  \oith  him,  although  adopted  by  Tischeudorf, 
appears  to  us  untenable.  Whether,  in  fact,  this/o;'  be  put  in  tiie  mouth  of  the  nar- 
rator, or  be  assigned  t'j  the  persons  who  ask  the  preceding  question,  in  either  case 
these  woids,  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  Idm,  must  refer  to  all  the  circumstances 
which  have  just  ])een  narrated,  while,  accordiug  to  the  natural  sense  of  the  im[)erfeut 
yv,  was,  they  apply  to  the  entire  childhood  of  John  the  Baptist.  This  for  has  been 
•wrongly  added,  with  a  view  of  making  this  reflection  the  motive  of  the  preceding 
ciuestiou.  The  T.  R.  is  supported  by  not  only  the  majority  of  the  Mjj.,  but  more 
especially  by  the  agreement  of  the  Alexandrmus  and  of  the  Peschito,  which  is  always 
a  criterion  worthy  of  attention.  The  development  of  this  child  was  effected  with  the 
marked  concurrence  of  divine  power.  The  hand,  here  as  usually,  is  the  emblem  of 
force.  These  last  words  form  the  first  of  those  resting-points  which  we  shnll  often 
meet  with  in  the  course  of  our  Gospel,  and  which  occur  in  the  book  of  the  Acts.  It 
is  a  picture,  drawn  with  a  single  stroke  of  the  pen,  of  the  entire  childhood  of  John 
the  Baptist,     Comp.  ver.  80,  which  describes,  by  a  corresponding  formula,  his  youth. 

3.  The  song  of  Zachurias  :  vers.  67-80.  It  might  be  supposed  that  Zacharias  com- 
posed this  song  in  view  of  the  religious  and  moral  progress  of  the  child,  or  on  the 
occasion  of  some  special  event  in  which  the  divine  power  within  him  was  displayed 
during  the  course  of  his  childhood.  We  aie  led,  however,  to  another  supposition  by 
the  connection  between  the  first  words  of  the  song.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  and  the 
expression  which  the  evangelist  has  employed  in  ver.  64,  "  he  spake,  blessing  God." 
This  song,  which  was  composed  in  the  priest's  mind  during  the  time  of  hi.s  silence, 
broke  sclemnly  from  his  lips  the  moment  speech  was  restored  to  him,  as  the  metal 
flows  from  the  crucible  in  which  it  has  been  melted  the  moment  that  an  (.ullet  is 
made  for  it.  At  ver.  64  Luke  is  contented  to  indicate  the  place  of  the  song,  in  order 
not  to  interrupt  the  narrative,  and  he  has  appended  the  song  itself  to  his  narrative,  as 
possessing  a  value  independent  of  the  time  when  it  was  uttered.  We  observe  in  the 
hymn  of  Zacharias  the  same  order  as  in  the  salutation  of  Elizabeth.  The  theocratic 
sentiment  breaks  forth  first  :  Zacharias  gives  thanks  for  the  arrival  of  the  times  of 
the  Messiah  (vers.  68-75).  Then  his  paternal  feeling  comes  out.  as  it  were,  in  a  pa- 
renthesis :  the  father  expresses  his  joy  at  the  glorious  part  assigned  to  his  son  in  this 
great  work  (vers.  76  and  77)  ;  lastly,  thanksgiving  for  the  Messianic  salvation  over- 
flows and  closes  the  song  (vers.  78  and  79).  The  spiritual  character  of  this  passage 
apficars  even  from  this  exposition.  It  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  to  subor- 
dinate even  the  legitimate  emotions  of  paternal  affection  to  the  theocratic  senliiiient. 

1st.  Vers.  67-75.  Zacharias  gives  thanks  first  of  all  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
(vers.  67-70)  ;  then  for  the  deliverance  which  His  presence  is  about  to  procure  for 
Israel  (vers.  71-75). 

Vers.  67-75.*  "And  his  father  Zacharias  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 

*  Ver.  70,  !*.  B.  L.  W^  A.  some  Mnn.  Or.  omit  rcjv  after  ayuv.  Ver.  74.  !S.  B. 
L.  W''.  some  Mnn.  Or.  omit  rjf^uv.  Ver.  75.  B.  L.,  rati  nu.Epa.ii,  instead  of  tcS 
■ntiepaz.  ■&  A.  B.  C.  D.  and  11  other  Mjj.  40  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  omit  t??s  C"»?5,  which  is 
the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  7  Mjj.  Or. 


CHAP.   I.  :  G7-T5.  69 

prophesied,  saying,  G8.  Blessed  be  Uie  Lord  God  of  Israel;  for  lie  liatli  visited  and 
r(.deeine<l  His  iicople,  09.  Aud  halh  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  honso 
of  His  servant  Daviil.  70.  As  He  spake  l)y  the  nioulh  of  His  holy  ptophels.  which 
liave  been  since  the  world  began;  71.  That  we  should  bo  saved  from  our  enemiis. 
and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us  ;  72.  To  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our 
fathers,  and  to  renumber  His  holy  covenant,  73.  The  oath  which  Ho  sware  to  our 
father  Abraham,  74.  Tiiat  He  would  grant  unto  us,  that  we,  being  delivered  out  of 
the  hand  of  our  enemies,  might  serve  Him  without  fear.  75.  In  holiness  aud  right- 
eousness before  Him,  all  the  days  of  our  life." 

The  aorists,  hath  raised  up,  hath  dditercd,  imply  a  knowledge  on  Zacharias'  part 
of  the  fact  of  the  incarnation.  The  term  visited  refers  to  the  absence  of  God  during 
the  four  centuiies  in  which  the  prophetic  voice  had  been  silent  aud  heaven  shut.  The 
abstract  expressions  of  the  sixty  eighth  verse  are  followed  in  ver.  09  by  one  more  con- 
crete. Zacharias  is  emboldened  to  designate  the  ISIessiah  Himself.  He  calls  Him  a 
horn  of  salvation.  This  image  of  a  horn  is  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  it 
had  been  already  applied  to  the  ]\Iesi.iah  :  I  will  raise  up  a  horn  to  David  (Ps.  V62  :  IG). 
The  explanation  must  be  found  neither  in  the  horns  of  the  alliir  on  which  crimimds 
sought  to  lay  hold,  nor  in  the  horns  with  which  they  ornanienled  their  helmets  ; 
the  figure  is  taken  from  the  horns  of  the  bull,  iu  which  the  power  of  this  animal 
resides.  It  is  a  natural  image  among  an  agricultural  people.  Tho  Xerm  y}eip€,  halh 
raised  tip,  is  properly  app!ied  to  an  organic  growth,  like  .1  horn.  Just  as  the  strength 
of  the  animal  is  concentrated  in  its  horn,  so  all  the  dtlivering  power  granted  to  the 
family  of  David  for  the  advantage  of  the  people  will  be  concentrated  in  the  ^lessiah. 
This  verse  implies  that  Zacharias  regarded  ?tlary  as  a  descendant  of  David.  In  ver. 
70,  Zacharias  sets  forth  the  greatness  of  this  appearing  by  referring  to  the  numerous 
and  ancient  promises  of  which  it  is  the  subject.  Whelher  with  or  without  the  article 
Tuv,  uyiuv  {holy)  must  in  any  case  be  taken  as  an  adjective  ;  aud  it  is  unnecessary  to 
translate,  of  Ilis  saints  of  etcry  age  icho  have  been  prophets,  which  would  imply 
that  all  the  saints  have  prophesied.  If  rijv  is  retained,  the  word  simply  serves  as  a 
point  of  support  t3  ihe  delinilive  term  u~'  a'tuvo^.  The  epithet  holy  characterizes 
the  prophels  as  orgaus,  not  of  a  human  and  consequenll}''  profane  word,  but  of  a 
divine  revelation.  Holiness  is  the  distinctive  feature  of  all  that  emanates  from  God. 
"We  may  judge,  by  the  impression  which  the  certain  approach  of  Christ's  advent 
would  make  on  us,  of  the  feeling  which  must  have  been  produced  in  the  hearts  t)f 
these  people  by  the  thought.  The  Messiah  is  there  ;  history,  long  suspended,  resumes 
its  march,  and  touches  its  goal. 

In  vers.  71-73,  Zacharias  describes  the  work  of  this  Messiah.  The  most  natural 
explanation  of  aurrjijiav,  salvation,  is  to  regard  this  word  as  in  apposition  with  the 
term  horn  of  sal  rat  ion  (ver.  C9).  The  notion  of  salvation  is  easily  substituted  for  that 
of  a  Saviour.  The  idea  of  salvation,  brought  out  in  this  first  word,  is  exhibited  in  its 
full  meaning  in  v<^r.  7-4.  The  two  terms,  our  enemies,  and  them  thathate  us,  cannot  be 
altogether  synonymous.  The  former  denotes  the  foreign  heathen  oppressors  ;  the 
latter  would  embrace  also  the  native  tyrants,  Herod  and  his  patty,  so  odious  to  Iruo 
Israelites.  In  granting  this  deliverance,  God  shows  mercy  (ver.  72).  not  only  to  the 
living,  but  to  the  dead,  who  were  waiting  with  the  heartsickness  of  deferred  hope  for 
the  accomplishment  of  the  promises,  and  especially  of  the  oaths  of  God.  On  this 
idea,  see  1  rlT  ;  for  the  infinitive  /^vrjoOT/vat,  ver.  54  ;  for  the  turn  of  expression  -Koidv 
fiera,  ver.  58.     *Op\ov  (ver.  7;j)  is  iu  apposition  with  iha^Ji'/Kri;.     The  accu.^alive  is  oora- 


70  COMMEKTAEY    OK    ST.   LUKE. 

sionecl  by  the  pronoun  bv.  This  attraction  is  the  more  easily  accounted  for,  that 
fivdaOai  is  construed  in  the  LXX.  with  the  accusiitive  and  the  genitive  iudilTerently. 
Tlie  infinitive  to  grant  expresses  the  long-expected  end  of  the  development  of  proph- 
ecy, a  development  which  seems  designed  to  typify  this  long  period.  The  article 
rui  characteiizes  the  infinitive  6ovvai  as  the  end  desired  and  determined  from  the 
beginning.  Grammatically,  it  depends  on  bpKov ;  logically,  on  all  that  precedes.  In 
the  following  phrase,  the  relation  of  ()vafJEVTag  to  Au-peveiv  should  be  observed  :  after 
having  been  delivered,  to  serve  God:  the  end  is  perfect  religious  service;  political 
deliverance  is  only  a  means  to  it.  Perfect  worship  requires  outward  security.  The 
Jlesiiah  Is  about  to  reign  ;  no  Antiochus  Epiphanes  or  Pompey  shall  any  more  pro- 
fane the  sanctuary  !  We  Hud  'here  in  all  its  purity  the  ideal  salvation  as  it  is 
described  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  as  the  son  of  Zacharias  himself  understood  it 
to  the  very  last.  Its  leading  feature  is  the  indissoluble  union  of  the  two  deliverances, 
the  religious  and  the  political  ;  it  was  a  glorious  theocracy  founded  on  national  holi- 
ness. This  programme  prevented  John  the  Baptist  from  identifying  himself  with 
the  course  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  How,  after  the  unbelief  of  Israel  had  created  a 
giilf  between  the  expectation  and  the  facas,  could  a  later  writer,  attributing  to  Zach- 
arias just  what  words  he  pleased,  put  into  his  mouth  these  fond  hopes  of  earlier 
days  ? 

'OaLOTi}^,  purity,  and  duiaioGvvri,  righteousnesa  {■ver .  75),  have  been  distinguished  in 
several  ways.  Bletk  and  others  refer  the  former  of  these  terms  to  tiie  inward 
disposition,  the  latter  to  the  outward  conduct.  But  rigiiteousness.  in  the  Sciiptures, 
comprehends  more  than  the  outward  act.  Others  apply  the  former  to  relations  with 
Gcd,  the  latter  to  relations  with  men.  But  righte.aisuess  also  comprehends  man's 
relations  with  God.  It  appears  to  us  rather  that  puiity,  6t7Jc/r?/5,  is  a  negative  qual- 
ity, the  absence  of  stain  ;  and  righteousness  (5i«aa)aw?7, a  positive  quality,  the  pies- 
ence  of  all  those  religious  and  moral  virtues  which  render  worship  acceptable  to 
God.  Comp.  Eph.  4  :  24.  The  authorities  decide  in  favor  of  the  excision  of  the 
words  r^f  Cw7/f,  although  the  French  translation  cannot  dispense  with  them.  At  the 
lime  of  the  captivity,  the  prophet  priest  Ezekiel  contemplated,  under  the  image  of 
a  temple  of  perfect  dimensions,  the  perfected  theocracy  (Ezek.  40  :  48).  Here  the 
priest  prophet  Zacharias  contemplates  the  same  ideal  under  the  image  of  an  uninter- 
rupted and  undetikd  worship.  T::e  Holy  Spirit  adapts  the  form  of  His  revelations 
to  the  habitual  prepossessions  of  those  who  are  to  be  the  organs  of  them. 

2d.  Vers.  76,  77.  From  the  height  to  which  he  has  just  attained,  Zacharias  allows 
his  glance  to  fall  upon  the  little  child  at  rest  before  him,  and  he  assigns  him  his  part 
in  the  work  which  has  begun.  Ver  76  refers  to  him  personally,  ver.  77  to  his 
mission. 

Vers.  76  and  77.*  "  And  thou,  child,  shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest, 
for  thou  shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Loid  to  prepare  His  ways,  77.  To  give  knowl- 
edge of  salvation  unto  His  people  by  the  remission  of  their  sims. " 

The  reading  ml  cv,  and  thou,  connects,  by  an  easy  transition,  the  forernnner  with 
the  work  of  the  Messiah.  The  Alex,  reading,  aal  ci)  fJt',  but  tJiou,  brings  out  more 
Etronglj--,  too  strongly,  doubtless,  this  secondary  personality  ;  it  has  against  it  not 
only  the  sixteen    other  Mjj.,   but    further,    the  Pescluto,  the  Italic,   Ircnseus,    and 

*  Ver.  7G.  S.  R.  C.  D.  L.  R.  read  fis  after  Kai  nv.  )k.  B.  Or.,  svutzlov  instead  of 
irpo  irpoacjrov.     Ver.  77.  A.  C.  M.  O.  R.  U.,  some  Mun.,  read  7//iuv  instead  of  avuji.. 


CHAP.  I. :  ;g-;9.  71 

Origen,  and  must  therefore  be  rejected.  The  title  of  prophet  of  the  Ilighest  simply 
places  .John  the  BupUst  in  that  choir  of  the  prophets  of  whom  Zacharias  speaks  i a 
ver.  70  ;  later  on,  Jesus  will  assign  him  a  higher  place.  la  saying  the  Lord,  Zach- 
arias can  only  be  thinking  of  the  Messiah.  This  is  proved  by  tiie  npo,  before  Uiin,  iu 
irpoirooeiKiy,  and  the  airoi.  His  ways.  But  he  could  not  designate  Him  by  this  name, 
unless,  lA'ilh  Malachi,  he  recognized  in  Eis  coming  the  appearing  of  Jehovah  (comi). 
1  :17,  io.  '3  ;  11).  The  second  proposition  is  a  combination  of  the  two  pro[)()siiions. 
Isa.  40  ;  3  {hotudnm)  and  Mai.  3  : 1  {nponopevaij),  prcpliecies  wliich  are  also  found 
combined  in  ^laik  1  :  2,  3.  The  article  tov  before  doivai^  to  give,  indicates  a  purpose. 
This  word,  iu  fact,  throws  a  vivid  light  on  the  aim  of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry. 
Why  was  the  ministry  of  the  Messiah  preceded  by  that  of  another  divine  messenger '( 
Because  the  very  notion  of  salvation  was  falsified  in  Israel,  and  had  to  be  corrected 
before  salvation  could  be  realized.  A  carnal  and  malignant  patriotism  had  taken 
possession  of  the  people  and  their  rulers,  and  the  idea  of  a  political  deliverance  had 
been  substituted  for  that  of  a  moral  salvation.  If  the  notion  of  salvation  had  not  been 
restored  to  its  scriptural  purity  before  being  realized  by  the  Messiah,  not  011I3'  would 
He  have  had  to  employ  a  large  part  of  the  time  assigned  to  Him  in  accomplishing  this 
indispensable  task  ;  but  further.  He  would  certainly  have  been  accused  of  inventing 
a  theory  of  salvation  to  suit  His  impotence  to  ell'ect  any  other.  There  v.as  needed, 
then,  another  person,  divinely  authorized,  to  remind  the  people  that  pei-dilion  con- 
sisted not  in  subjection  to  the  Romans,  but  in  divine  condemnation  ;  and  that  salva- 
tion, therefore,  was  not  temporal  emancipation, but  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  To  im- 
plant once  more  iu  the  hearts  of  the  people  this  notion  of  salvation  was  Indeed  to 
prepare  the  way  for  Jesus,  who  was  to  accomplish  this  salvation,  and  no  other.  The 
last  words,  by  the  rcmmion  of  their  sins,  depend  directly  on  the  word  aunjpio.i, 
mlvation:  salvation  by,  that  is  to  say,  consisting  in.  The  article  r^5  is  omiltcd 
before  iv  in^iaei,  as  is  the  case  when  the  definitive  forms,  with  the  word  on  wliich  it 
depends,  merely  one  and  the  same  notion.  The  x>ronoua  avTu>v  refers  to  afl  the  indi- 
viduals comprehended  under  the  collective  idea  of  people.  The  authorities  which  read 
^Mwv  are  iusuflScient.  The  words  to  His  people  show  that  Isnicl  although  the  people 
of  God,  were  blind  to  the  way  of  salvation.  John  the  Baptist  was  to  show  to  lhi.s 
people,  who  believed  that  all  they  needed  was  political  restoration,  thnt  they  were 
not  less  guilty  Ihau  the  heathen,  and  that  Ihey  needed  just  as  much  divine  pardon. 
This  was  precisely  the  meaning  of  the  baptism  to  which  he  invited  the  Jews. 

3d.  Vers.  78  and  79.  After  this  episode,  Zacharias  returns  to  the  principal  sul) 
ject  of  his  song,  an^l,  iu  an  admirable  closing  picture,  describes  the  glory  of  Jlessiah's 
appearing,  and  of  tlie  salvation  which  He  biings. 

Vers.  78  and  79.*  "  Through  the  tender  mercy  of  our  God.  whereby  the  daysprin^' 
from  on  high  hath  visited  us,  79.  To  give  light  to  them  that  sit  in  darkness  and  in  the 
shadow  of  death,  to  guide  our  feet  unto  the  way  of  peace." 

Zacharias  ascends  to  the  highest  source  whence  this  stream  of  grace  pours  down 
upon  our  earth — the  divine  mercy.  This  idea  is  naturally  connected  with  that  of 
pardon  (ver.  77).  as  is  expressed  by  cJtu  with  the  accusative,  which  means  properly 
byrmsonof.  The  bowels  in  Scripture  are  the  seat  of  all  the  sympathetic  emotions. 
'Zir'^.nyxva  answers  to  C''!^""!-  The  future  eTiaKE^ismi,  tcill  visit,  in  some  Alex.,  is 
evidently  a  correction  suggested  by  the  consideration  that  Christ  was  not  born  at  the 

*  Ver.  78.  ii.  B.  L.,  nriohe^l'frai.  Instead  of  f-rnKfipaTo. 


7J5  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

time  Zacharias  was  speaking.  Yet  even  such  instances  as  these  do  not  disturb  the 
failh  of  critics  in  the  authority  of  Alexandrine  Mss.  ! 

All  the  images  in  tlie  picture  portrayed  m  vers.  78,  79  appear  to  be  borrowed 
from  the  following  comparison  :  A  caravan  misses  its  way  and  is  lost  in  the  desert ; 
the  unfortunate  pilgrims,  overtaken  by  night,  are  sitting  down  in  tlie  midst  of  tliis 
fearful  darkness,  expecting  death.  All  at  once  a  bright  star  rises  iu  the  horizon  and 
lights  up  tiie  plain  ;  the  travellers,  taking  courage  at  this  sight,  arise,  and  by  the  light 
of  this  star  find  the  road  which  leads  them  to  the  end  of  their  journey.  The  substan- 
tive avaro'/.i/,  the  rising,  which  by  general  consent  is  here  translated  the  dawn,  has 
two  senses  iu  the  LXX.  It  is  employed  to  translate  the  noun  nDi*'  ^i"<inch,  by  which 
Jeremiah  and  Zechariah  designate  the  Messiah.  This  sense  of  the  word  uvarolq  is 
unknown  iu  profane  Greek.  The  term  is  also  used  by  the  LXX.  to  express  the  rising 
of  a  heavenly  body — the  rising  of  the  moon,  for  instance  ;  comp.  Isa.  60  :  19.  This 
sense  agrees  with  the  meaning  of  the  verb  avaTilTiEtv  ;  Isa.  GO  :1,  "  Tlie  glory  of  the 
Lord  hath  risen  {avaTETaAnev)  upon  thee;"  Mai.  4:3,  "The  sun  of  righteousness 
shall  rise  (avare/lei)  upon  you."  This  is  the  meaning  of  tlie  word  araro/i;)  in  good 
Greek.  And  it  appears  to  us  that  this  is  its  meaning  here.  It  follows,  indeed,  from 
the  use  of  the  verb  hath  visited  us,  which  may  very  well  be  said  of  a  star,  but  not  of 
a  branch  ;  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  images  that  follow,  to  light  and  to 
direct  (ver.  79).  Besides,  the  epithet /row  on  high  agrees  much  better  with  the  figure 
of  a  star  than  with  that  of  a  plant  that  sprouts.  The  regimen /row  on  high  does  not 
certainly  quite  agree  with  the  verb  to  riKe.  But  the  litrmfrom  on  high  is  suggestc^d  by 
the  idea  of  visiting,  which  goes  before  :  it  is  from  the  bosom  of  divine  mercy  that  this 
star  comes  down,  and  it  does  not  rise  upon  humanity  until  after  it  has  descended  and 
been  made  man.  Bleek  does  not  altogether  reject  this  obvious  meaning  of  dva-oA^ ;  but 
he  maintains  that  we  should  combine  it  with  the  sense  of  branch,  by  supposing  a  play  of 
words  turning  upon  the  double  image  of  a  sprouting  branch  and  a  rising  star  ;  and  as 
there  is  no  Hebrew  word  which  will  bear  this  double  meaning,  he  draws  from  this 
passage  the  serious  critical  consequence,  that  this  song,  and  therefore  all  the  others 
contained  iu  these  two  chapters,  were  originally  written,  not  in  Aramean,  but  in 
Greek,  which  of  course  deprives  them  of  their  authenticity.  But  this  whole  ex- 
planation is  simply  a  play  of  Bleek's  imagination.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  to 
indicate  that  the  author  intends  any  pla}'' upon  words  here  ;  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
none  of  the  images  employed  are  compatible  with  the  meaning  of  branch. 

The  ex[)ressions  of  ver.  79  are  borrowed  from  Isa.  9  :  1,  60  :  2.  Darkness  is  the  em- 
blem of  alienation  from  God,  and  of  the  spiritual  ignorance  that  accompanies  it.  This 
darkness  is  a  shadow  of  death,  because  it  leads  to  perdition,  just  as  the  darkening  of 
i-ight  in  the  dying  is  a  prelude  to  the  night  of  death.  The  term  sit  denotes  a  statu  of 
exhaustion  and  despair.  The  sudden  shining  forth  of  the  star  bring?  the  whole 
caravan  of  travellers  to  their  feet  {rohi  Trodai),  and  enables  them  to  find  their  way. 
The  xcay  of  peace  denotes  the  means  of  obtaining  reconciliation  with  God,  the  chief 
of  all  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings.  Elpj^vri,  peace,  answers  to  C'^'TU'  ^  word  by 
which  the  Hebrew  language  designates  the  bountiful  supply  of  whatever  answers  to 
human  need — full  prosperity. 

Ver.  80.  The  historical  conclusion,  ver.  80,  corresponds  with  that  in  ver.  66.  As 
the  latter  sketches  with  a  stroke  of  the  pen  the  childhood  of  John,  so  this  gives  a  pic- 
ture of  his  youth,  and  carries  us  forward  to  the  time  when  he  began  his  minislr}'. 
The  term  he  grew  refers  to  his  physical  development,  and  the  expression  following. 


CHAP.  I.  :  80.  73 

W((jrd  strong  in  Kpirif,  (n  his  spiritual  devclopinout,  that  is  to  saj',  religioiis,  inoiiil, 
ami  iulelleclual.  Tbe  preiloiniiiatit  feature  of  this  ilevclopment  was  foice.  cuergy  (ho 
grew  strong  in  spirit.)  Lulce,  iloubtless,  meuus  by  this  the  power  of  the  will  over  liio 
iu.stiacls  uuil  iiiclMiatious  of  the  body.  Tiio  xpirit  is  here  ceitaiuly  that  of  John  him- 
self ;  but  wheu  a  mau  develops  iu  a  right  way,  it  is  onli'^  by  eoininuiuoa  with  tiie 
Divine  Spirit  that  his  spirit  unfolds,  as  tlu  flower  only  blows  wheu  in  contact  with 
the  light.  This  spiritual  development  of  John  was  due  to  no  human  intlueuce.  For 
the  child  lived  in  the  deserts.  Probably  the  desert  of  Judea  is  meant  here,  an  in- 
habited couutiy,  whose  deeply  creviced  soil  affords  an  outlet  to  several  streams  that 
empty  themselves  into  the  Dead  Sea.  This  country,  abounding  in  caves,  has  always 
been  the  refuge  of  anchorites.  In  the  time  of  John  tiic  Baj^tist  tliere  were  probably 
Essenian  monasteries  there  ;  for  history  says  positively  that  these  ceiiobites  dwelt 
upon  both  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  has  been  inferred  from  this  passage  that  John, 
during  his  sojourn  in  the  desert,  visited  these  sages,  and  profited  by  their  teaching. 
Tiiis  opinion  is  altogether  opposed  to  the  design  of  the  text,  which  is  to  atlribuie  (o 
God  alone  the  direction  of  the  development  of  the  forerunner.  But  more  than  this^ 
If  John  was  taught  by  tiie  Essenes,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Ihe  only  thing  their  in- 
structions did  for  him  was  to  lead  him  to  take  entiiely  opposite  views  on  all  points. 
The  Essenes  had  renounced  ever}'  jMessianic  expectaiion  ;  the  soul  of  John's  life  and 
ministry  was  the  expectation  of  the  jMessiah  and  the  preparation  for  K's  work.  The 
Essenes  made  mailer  the  seat  of  sin  ;  John,  by  his  energetic  calls  Vo  conversion, 
shows  plainly  enough  that  he  found  it  in  the  will.  The  Essenes  withdrew  from  society, 
and  gave  themselves  up  to  mystic  contemplation  ;  John,  at  the  signal  from  on  high, 
thiew  himself  boldly  into  the  midst  of  the  people,  and  to  Ihu  very  last  took  a  most  active 
and  courageous  pait  iu  the  affairs  of  his  country.  If,  after  all,  any  similaiities  are 
found  betwren  him  and  tiitm.  John's  originality  is  too  well  estaiilished  to  attribute 
them  to  imitatiou;  such  similarities  arise  from  the  attempt  they  both  made  to  effect 
a  reform  in  degeuerate  Judaism.  The  relation  of  John  to  the  Essenes  is  very  similaT 
to  that  of  Luther  to  the  mystics  of  the  middle  ages.  On  the  pait  of  the  Essenes.  as 
of  the  mj'stics,  there  is  the  human  effort  which  attests  (he  need  ;  ou  the  part  of  John^ 
as  well  as  of  Luther,  the  divine  work  wiiich  satisfies  it.  The  abstract  plural  in  the 
d^serf!<  proves  that  this  observation  is  made  with  a  moral  and  not  a  geographical  aim 
Tiie  word  avdSei^ti,  showing,  denotes  the  installation  of  a  servant  into  his  otiice,  his 
official  institution  into  his  charge.  The  author  of  this  act,  unnamed  but  under- 
stood, is  evidently  God.  It  follows  from  3  :  3,  and  from  John  1  :  31 -3:3,  that  a  direct 
communication  fnmi  on  high,  perhaps  a  theophany,  such  as  called  Moses  from  the 
desert,  was  the  signal  for  John  to  enter  upon  his  work.  But  we  have  no  account  of 
lliis  scene  which  took  place  between  God  and  His  messenger.  Our  evangelists  only 
relate  what  they  know. 

FIFTn  N.VnR.\.TIVE. — CHAP.    2  :  1-20. 

The  Bivth  of  the  Saviour. 

Henceforth  there  exists  in  the  midst  of  corrupt  humanity  a  pure  Being,  on  whom 
God's  regard  can  rest  with  unmingled  satisfaction.  Uniting  in  this  divine  contem- 
plation, the  celestial  intelligences  already  see  etreamiug  from  this  (ire  those  waves  o£ 
light  which  will  ultimately  penetrate  to  the  remotest  bounds  of  the  moral  universe. 
The  new  creation,  the  union  of  Gotl  with  the  sanctified  creature,  begins  to  find  its  ac 


74  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.    LUKE. 

complishmcnt  in  this  Being,  in  order  to  extend  from  Ilitn  to  the  whole  of  raan'nnd, 
and  to  comprcheua  at  lust  heaven  itself,  vrhich  is  to  be  united  with  us  undei  on'-  and 
the  same  head,  and  to  adore  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  its  Lord  (Col.  1  •  20  :  Eph. 
1  :  10  :  Phil.  2  : 9-11).  Such  is  the  point  of  view  we  must  take  in  oider  to  appreciatu 
the  following  narrative  :  1.  Jesus  is  bjru  (vers.  1-7)  ;  2.  The  angels  celebrate  th..s 
birth  (vers.  8-14)  ;  3.  The  shepherds  ascertain  and  publish  it  (vers.  15-20). 

1.  The  Birth  of  Jesus:  vers.  1-7.  And  fii&t  u  hisl<)iical  note:  vets.  1  and  2.* 
The  words  in  those  days  refer  to  the  time  which  followed  the  biith  of  John  liie  Bap- 
tist, and  give  the  remark  in  1  :  80  an  anticipatory  character,  ^oyiin  dcuotis,  in  cl  ls- 
sical  Greek,  any  edict  of  a  recognized  authorily.  The  use  cf  (lie  woid  f.jf/6ica',  fo 
go  forth,  in  the  sense  of  being  j?;i;Wi,s7<(?o',  answers  to  tlie  meaning  of  j^jx-i,  Dan.  9  :  2,  ;>. 
The  term  cnioypa(pi],  description,  denotes  among  the  Human  i  the  inscription  on  an 
official  register  of  the  name,  age,  profession,  and  fortune  of  each  head  of  a  family,  and 
of  the  number  of  his  children,  with  a  view  to  the  ast-ess-ment  of  a  tax.  The  fiscal 
taxation  which  followed  was  more  particularly  indicated  by  the  term  cnvoTifjjjaiS.  Criti- 
cism raises  several  objections  against  the  truth  (  f  the  fact  related  in  ver.  1  :  1st,  No 
historian  of  the  time  mentions  such  a  decree  of  Augustus.  2.1,  On  the  supposition 
that  Augustus  had  issued  such  an  edict,  it  would  not  have  been  applicable  to  the  states 
of  Ilerod  iu  general,  nor  to  Judea  in  particular,  since  this  country  was  not  reduced  to 
a  Roman  province  until  ten  or  eleven  years  later — the  year  6  of  our  era.  3d,  A  Roman 
edict,  executed  within  the  stales  of  Herod,  must  have  been  executed  according  to 
Roman  forms  ;  and  according  to  these,  it  would  have  been  in  no  way  necessary  for 
Joseph  to  put  in  an  appearance  at  Bethlehem  ;  for,  according  to  Roman  law,  regis- 
tration was  made  at  the  ])]ace  of  birth  or  residence,  and  not  at  the  place  where  tlio 
family  originated  4lh,  Even  admitting  the  necessity  of  removal  in  the  case  of  Joseph, 
this  obligation  did  not  extend  to  Mary,  who.  as  a  woman,  was  not  liable  to  registra- 
tion. In  Older  to  meet  some  of  these  difficulties.  Hug  has  limited  the  meaning  of  I  he 
words,  all  the  earth,  to  Palestine.  But  the  connection  of  this  expression  with  the 
name  Ca3sar  Augustus  will  not  allow  of  our  accepting  this  explanation;  besides 
which,  it  leaves  several  of  the  difficuhies  indicated  untouched.  The  reader  who  feels 
any  confidence  in  Luke's  narrative,  and  who  is  desirous  of  solving  its  ditficulties,  will 
find,  we  think,  a  solution  resulting  from  the  following  facts  : 

Fronr  the  commencement  of  his  reign,  Augustus  always  aimed  at  a  stronger  cen- 
tralization of  the  empire.  Already,  under  Julius  Csesar,  there  had  been  undertaken, 
with  a  view  to  a  more  exact  assessment  of  taxation,  a  great  statistical  work,  a  com- 
plete survey  of  the  empire,  descripiio  orbis.  This  work,  which  occupied  thirfy-twy 
years,  was  only  finished  under  Augustus. f  This  prince  never  ceased  to  labor  in  lite 
eame  direction.  After  his  death,  Tiberius  caused  to  be  read  in  the  Senate,  in  accoid 
ance  with  instructions  contained  in  the  will  of  Augustus,  a  statistical  document, 
which  applied  not  only  to  the  empire  properly  so  called,  but  also  to  the  allied  king, 
doms— a  category  to  which  the  states  of  Herod  belonged.  This  document,  called 
"  Breviarium  totius  imperii,"  was  written  entirely  by  Augustus'  own  hand. J    It  gave 

*  Ver.  2.  !!^.  B.  D.  omit  r]  after  avrr].  Instead  of  n-rroypnoij  ttpljttj  eyerero,  Si  *  ic-uls 
a-xoypa^ri  eyevETO  TtpuTTj.  Instead  of  Kvp-qvLov,  A.  Ktjpvdiov,  B*  Kvptu-ov,  B^.  It.  Vg. 
Kvpivnv  (Cyrino). 

f  See  the  recent  work  of  Wieseler,  "  Beitrage  zur  richtigen  Wlirdigung  der 
Evangelien,"  etc.,  1869,  p.  23. 

t  Tacitus  Ann.  i.  11  ;  Suetonius,  Octav.  c.  27,  28,  101. 


cHAi'.    II.  :  1-7.  7.") 

"  the  number  of  the  cilizens  nnJ  of  allies  umkr  arms,  of  the  fleets,  of  tlic  kiii»doms, 
of  the  proviuccs,  of  the  tributes  or  taxes."  The  coinpilutiou  of  such  a  dociimeiU  as 
tliis  nece!*siiiily  supposes  ;i  previous  stalisticul  labor,  comprehending  not  only  the  eBi- 
pire  proper,  but  ais  >  the  allii-'d  slates.  And  if  Augustus  had  ordered  lliis  work, 
Herod,  whose  kingdom  belonged  to  the  immber  of  n'(7//a  reddila,  coidd  not  have  re- 
fii>ed  to  take  part  in  it.  The  silence  of  historians  in  regard  to  this  fact  proves  simply 
iioiliing  against  its  reality.  Wiesiler  gives  a  host  of  examples  of  similar  omissions. 
Tiie  great  statistical  work  previously  acc!)n>j)lished  by  Julius  Cajsar,  and  about,  which 
no  one  can  entertain  a  doubt,  is  not  noticed  by  any  historian  of  tlie  time.*  Joscplius, 
in  his  "  Jewish  War,"  written  before  his  "  Antiquities,"  when  giving  au  account  of 
tlic  g:)vernment  of  Coponius,  does  not  mention  even  the  census  of  Quirinius.f  Then 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  tiiat  one  ot  our  principal  sources  for  the  life  of  Augustus, 
Dion  Cassius,  presents  a  blank  for  just  the  years  748-750  u.c.  Besides,  this  silence 
is  am[)ly  compensated  for  b}'  the  posiiive  information  we  lind  in  later  writers.  Tluzs, 
Tertvdlian  mentions,  as  a  well-known  fact,  "  the  census  taken  in  Judea  under  Augus- 
tus by  Sentius  Saturnius,"  X  tliat  is  to  say,  from  74:4-748  u.c,  and  consequeiilly  only  a 
short  time  before  the  death  of  Herod  in  750.  The  accounts  of  Cassiodorus  and  Suidas 
leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  great  statistical  labors  accomplished  by  the  orders  of  Au- 
gustus.g  The  latter  says  expressly  :  "  Caesar  Augustus,  having  chosen  twenljMnen 
of  the  greatest  ability,  sent  them  into  all  the  countries  of  the  subject  nations  (rwi' 
v-riKuuv),  and  caused  them  to  make  a  registration  {anoypa^d'^)  of  men  and  property 
(ruivre  avOputTuv  kqI  oixriuv)."  These  details  are  not  furnished  by  Luke.  And  if  the 
t.isk  of  these  commissioners  specially  referred,  as  Suidas  says,  to  the  subject  nations, 
the  omission  of  all  meiitiou  of  this  measure  in  the  historians  of  the  time  is  more  easily 
accounted  for. 

Surprise  is  expressed  at  an  edict  of  Augustus  having  reference  to  the  states  of 
Herod.  But  Herod's  independence  was  oul}' relative.  There  is  no  money  known  to 
have  been  coined  in  his  name  ;  the  silver  coin  ciiculating  in  his  dominions  was 
Roman.!  From  the  time  of  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  the  Jews  paid  the  Ro- 
mans a  double  tribute,  a  i"0  1-tax  and  a  land-tax. T[  Tacitus  al.so  speak  of  complaints 
from  Syria  and  Judea  against  the  taxes  which  burdened  them.  Further,  the  Jews 
had  quite  recently,  according  to  Josephus,  been  obliged  to  take  individually  an  oath 
of  i)bedience  to  the  emperor  ("  Antiq. "  xvii.  2,  4).  The  application  of  a  decree  of  Au- 
gu.stus  to  the  dominions  of  Herod,  a  simple  vassal  of  the  emperor,  presents,  therefore, 
nothing  improbable.  Only  it  is  evident  that  the  emperor,  in  the  execution  of  the 
decree,  would  take  care  to  respect  in  form  the  sovereignty  of  the  king,  and  to  exe- 
cute it  altogether  by  his  instrnmentali'y.  Besides,  it  was  the  (custom  of  the  Rj- 
mans,  especially  in  their  fiscal  measures,  alu^ays  to  act  by  means  of  the  local  authori- 
ties, and  to  conform  as  far  as  possible  to  national  usages.**  Augustus  would  not  de- 
paitfrom  this  method  in  regard  to  Herod,  who  was  generally  an  object  of  favor. 
And  this  observation  overthrows  another  objection,  namely,  that  according  to  Roman 

*  Wie.seler,  in  the  work  referred  to,  p.  51.  f  Ibid.  p.  05. 

X  Sed  et  census  constat  artos  sub  Au'juste  .  .  .  in  Judira  prr  Scnti'iin  Satur- 
nium  (Adv.  Marc.  19).  The  word  conxtat  appears  to  allude  to  pu!)lic  documents  ;  and 
the  detail  by  Seulius  Saturnius  proves  that  his  source  of  informaljon  v/as  iuilepeu- 
dent  i>f  Luke. 

^  Wioseler,  p.  53.  |j  Ibid.  p.  8G.  ^  Ibid.  p.  73  and  fol. 

**  C  imp.  on  this  point  the  recent  works  of  Ilnschke  ("  U(  l>er  den  Census  der 
Kuiseizeit")  and  of  Marquadt  ("  Handbucii  der  romischen  Allerlhumer"). 


70  rOMMEXTAUY    ON    ST.   LUKE, 

custom  Joseph  would  not  have  to  present  himself  iu  the  place  where  his  family 
originated,  since  the  census  was  taken  at  the  place  of  residence.  But  Roman  usage 
did  not  prevail  here.  In  conformity  with  the  remnant  of  independence  which  Judea 
still  enjoyed,  the  census  demanded  hy  the  emperor  would  certainly  be  executed  ac- 
cording to  Jewish  orms.  These,  doubtless,  were  adapted  to  the  ancient  constitution 
of  tribes  and  families,  the  basis  of  Israelitish  organization  :  this  mode  was  at  once  Ihe 
simplest,  since  the  greater  part  of  the  families  still  lived  on  their  hereditary  posses- 
sions, and  the  surest,  inasmuch  as  families  that  had  removed  would  be  anxious  to 
strengthen  a  link  on  which  might  depend  questions  of  inheritance  and  other  rights 
besides.*  That  which  distinguished  the  census  of  Quirinius,  ten  years  later,  from  all 
similar  undertakings  that  had  preceded  it,  was  just  this,  that  on  this  occasion  the 
Roman  authority  as  such  executed  it,  without  the  intervention  of  the  national  power 
and  Jewish  customs.  Then,  accordingly,  the  people  keenly  felt  the  reality  of  their 
subjection,  and  broke  into  revolt.  And  history  has  preserved  scarcely  any  record  of 
similar  measures  wliich  preceded  this  eventful  census. 

As  to  Mary,  we  may  explain  without  any  difficulty  the  reasons  which  induced  her 
to  accompany  Joseph.  If,  at  ver.  5,  we  make  the  words  with  Mary  depend  specially 
on  the  verb  in  order  to  he  enrolled,  the  fact  may  be  explained  by  the  circumitance 
that,  according  to  Roman  law,  women  among  conquered  nations  were  subject  to  the 
capitation  tax.  Ulpian  expressly  saj's  this  {De  censibus)  :  "  that  in  Syria  (this  term 
cuinprehends  Palesiiue)  men  are  liable  to  the  capitation  from  their  fourteenth  3'ear, 
wr.men  from  their  twelfth  to  their  sixtieth."  Perhaps  women  were  sometimes  sum- 
m.med  to  appear  iu  person,  iu  older  that  their  age  might  be  ascertained.  Or,  indeed, 
we  may  suppose  that  Mary  was  the  sole  representative  of  one  of  the  branches  of  her 
tribe,  an  heiress,  which  obliged  her  to  appear  in  person.  Perhaps,  also,  by  the  in- 
scription of  her  name  she  was  anxious  to  establish  anew,  in  view  of  her  son,  her  de- 
scent from  the  familj^  of  David.  But  we  may  join  the  words  with  Mary  to  the  verb 
went  up.  The  motives  which  would  induce  Mary  to  accompan.y  Joseph  in  this  jour- 
iipy  are  obvious.  If,  in  the  whole  course  of  the  Gospel  history,  we  never  see  the 
least  reflection  cast  on  the  reputation  of  Mary,  although  only  six  months  bad  elapsed 
between  her  marriage  and  the  birth  of  Jesus,  is  not  this  circumstance  explained  by 
the  ver3'  fact  of  this  journey,  which  providentially  removed  Joseph  and  Mary  from 
Naziireth  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time,  just  when  the  biith  took  place  V  ]\Iary  must 
liave  recognized  the  finger  of  God  in  the  event  which  compelled  Joseph  to  leave 
home,  and  have  been  anxious  to  accompany  him. 

But  a  much  more  serious  difficulty  than  any  of  the  preceding  arises  relative  to  ver. 
2.  If  this  verse  is  translated,  as  it  usually  is,  "This  census,  which  was  the  first, 
took  place  when  Quirinius  governed  Syria,"  we  must  suppose,  on  account  of  what 
precedes,  that  Quirinius  filled  this  office  before  the  death  of  Herod.  But  history 
proves  that  Quirinius  did  not  become  governor  of  Syria  until  the  year  4,  and  that  he 
did  not  execute  the  enumeration  which  bears  his  name  until  the  year  6  of  our  era, 
after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  the  son  and  successor  of  Herod,  that  is  to  say,  ten 
years  at  least  after  the  birth  of  Jesus.  It  was  Varus  who  was  governor  of  Syria  at 
the  death  of  Herod.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  solve  this  difficulty  by  conecfing 
the  text  :  Theodore  de  Beza  by  making  ver.  2  an  interpolation  ;  Michaelis  by  adding 
the  words  npd  n'/S  after  iyevero:  "This  enumeration  took  place  before  that  which 

*  Wieseler,  pp.  66,  67. 


CHAP.    II.  :  1-2.  !   77 

Qnirinius  ext'culeil  .  .  ."*  These  arc  conjectures  without  founduliuii.  Agiiin, 
it  has  heeu  pioposed  to  give  the  word  ^fxJTT],  first,  a  meaniug  more  or  less  unusual, 
Aud  aecordiugly,  souie  Iranshile  this  word  as  pi'imus  is  sometimes  to  be  taken  in 
Latin,  and  as  eri>t  regularly  in  German  :  "  This  census  was  executed  only  when 
.  .  ."  {prima  acccdit  cum,  geschah  erst  ah).  Such  a  Latinism  is  hardly  admL'si- 
ble  And  besides,  if  the  ixeculion  had  not  followed  the  decree  immediately  (as  the 
trauslation  supposes),  how  could  the  decree  have  led  to  the  removal  of  Joseph  aud  the 
binh  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  while  Iltrod  was  still  reigning  ? 

An  interpretation  of  the  word  ^ypwr;;  which  is  sjcarccly  less  forced,  has  been  adopted 
by  Thohu'k,  Ewald,  Wieselcr  (who  maintains  and  defends  it  at  length  in  his  last 
wodv),  and  Pressens6  (in  his  "  Vie  de  Jesils").  Relying  on  John  1  :  15,  TrpuVos  fiov, 
15:18,  TvpuTov  vfiiliv,  they  give  to  npurri  the  sense  of  ■KpoTtpa,  and  explain  vpuTij 
iiytfiovEvovTOQ  a,&  if  it  were  -ponpov  y  i/yefiovevetv ;  which  results  in  the  following 
translation:  "This  enumeration  took  place  before  Quirinius  .  .  ."  They  cite 
from  the  LXX.  Jer.  29  : 2,  varspov  i^e'AOovTog  'lexovlov,  "after  Jechonias  was  gone 
forth;"'  and  from  Plato,  va-epoi  CKpUov-o  r^S  h  MnpaQun  fidxv^  yevo/utvij?,  "they 
arrived  after  the  battle  of  Marathon  had  taken  place."  But  this  accumulation  of 
two  irregularities,  the  employment  of  the  superlative  for  the  coinparalive,  and  of  the 
comparative  adjective  for  the  adverb,  is  not  admissible  in  such  a  writer  as  Luke, 
whose  style  is  generally  perfectly  lucid,  especially  if,  with  Wipseler,  after  having 
giveu  to  7r/)<j77/  the  sense  of  a  coniiiarativc,  we  want  to  keep,  in  addition,  its  siipei la- 
live  meaning  :  "  Tills  enumeration  tonk  place  as  a  first  one,  and  before  that  . 
This  certainly  goes  beyond  all  limits  of  what  is  possible,  wJiatever  the  high  philolog- 
ical authorities  may  say  for  it,  ux)on  whose  support  this  author  thinks  Jie  can  lely.t 
Another  attempt  at  interpretation,  proposed  by  Ebrard,  sets  out  from  a  distinction 
between  the  meaning  of  a-;;oypd<^>ea6aL  (ver.  1)  and  of  aTToypuipii  (ver.  2).  The  former  of 
these  two  inter()retalions  maj'  denote  the  registration,  the  second  the  pecuniary  tax- 
ation which  resullcd  from  it  (the  a-oTifirjaii);  and  this  difference  of  meaning  would 
be  indicated  by  the  pronoun  ainr],  which  it  would  he  necessary  to  read  nvrij  {ipm), 
and  not  nvrj]  (m).  "  As  to  the  taxation  itself  (which  followed  the  registration),  it  took 
place  only  when  Quirinius  was  .  .  ."  But  wiiy,  in  this  case,  did  not  Luke  em- 
ploy, in  the  second  verse,  another  word  than  a-nypa<j)f/,  which  evidently  recalled  the 
a7zoypd(peaQai  of  ver.  1  ?  Kiihler  %  acknowledged  that  these  two  words  should  have  an 
identical  meaning  ;  but,  with  Paukis,  Lange,  and  others,  he  thinks  be  can  distinguish 
between  the  pul)licatiou  of  the  decree  (ver.  1)  and  its  execution  (ver.  2).  which  oul}- 
look  place  ten  years  afterward,  and,  with  this  meaning,  put  the  accent  on  iyivtro: 
"  Csesar  Augustus  published  a  decree  (ver.  1),  and  the  registration  decreed  by  him  whs 
executed  (onl}-)  when  Quirinius  .  .  ."(ver.  2).  Bui  the  difficulty  is  to  see  how  this 
decree,  if  it  was  not  immediately  enforced,  could  induce  the  removal  of  Joseph  and 
Mary.  Kohler  replies  that  tjie  measure  decreed  began  to  be  carried  into  execution  ; 
but  on  account  of  the  disturbances  which  it  excited  it  was  soon  suspended,  and  that 
it  was  only  resumed  and  completely  carried  out  {[yivero)  under  Quirinius.  This  ex- 
planation is  ingenious,  but  very  artificial.     And  further,  it  does  not  suit  the  context. 

*  For  this  sense  it  would  be  better  to  conjecture  a  reading  rrpd  t^S  as  a  .substitute 
for  i-puTTi,  admitting  at  the  same  time  the  place  which  the  last  word  occupies  in  the 
text  of  5i  and  D. 

+  M.M.  Curtius  at  Leipsic  and  Schomann  at  Greifswald. 

i  "  Encyclopedic  de  llerzog,"  Art.  "  Schatzung. " 


78  COMMENTAIiY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Luke,  after  having  positively  denied  the  execution  of  the  measure  (ver.  2),  would 
relate  afterward  (ver.  3  and  ff.),  without  the  least  explanation,  a  fact  which  has  no 
meaning,  but  on  the  supposition  of  the  immediate  execution  of  this  decree  ! 

There  remaiu  a  number  of  attempted  solutions  which  rely  ou  history  lather  than 
philology.  As  far  as  the  text  is  concerned,  they  may  be  classed  with  the  ordinary 
explanation  which  treats  the  words  r/yetiovevovruS  KvpTjviov  as  a  genitive  absolute. 
Several  of  the  older  expositors,  as  Casaubou,  Sanclemente,  and  more  recently  Hug 
and  Neander,  starting  with  the  fact  that  before  Quirinms  was  governor  of  byria  he 
took  a  considerable  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  East  (Tac.  Ann.  ill.  48),  supposed  that 
he  presided  over  the  census,  of  which  Luke  here  speaks,  in  the  character  of  au  im- 
perial commissioner.  Luke,  they  think,  applied  to  this  temporary  jurisdiction  the 
term  iiye^ovEveiv,  which  ordinarily  denotes  the  function  of  a  goveinor  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term.  Zumpt  even  believed  he  could  prove  that  Quirinius  had  been 
twice  governor  of  Syria,*  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  it  was  during  tlie 
former  of  these  two  administrations  that  he  presided  over  the  census  mentioned  by 
Luke.  Mommsen  f  also  admits  the  fact  of  the  double  administration  of  Quirinius  as 
governor  of  Syria.  He  relies  particularly  ou  a  tumular  inscription  discovered  in 
17(54,:]:  which,  if  it  refers  to  Quirinius,  would  seem  to  s^y  that  this  person  had  been 
governor  of  Syria  on  two  occasions  {iteriim).  But  does  this  inscription  reallj'  refer 
lo  Quirinius  V  And  has  the  term  ilerum  all  ihe  force  which  is  given  to  it  ?  Wieseler 
clearly  shows  that  these  questions  are  not  yet  determined  with  any  certainty.  And 
supposing  even  that  this  double  administration  of  Quirinius  could  be  proved,  the 
former,  whiclj  is  the  one  with  which  we  are  concerned  here,  could  not  have  been,  as 
Zumpt  acknowledges,  until  from  the  end  of  750  to  7o3  r.c.  Now  it  is  indisputable 
that  at  this  time  Herod  had  been  dead  some  months  (the  spring  of  750),  and  conse- 
quently, according  to  the  text  of  Luke,  Jesus  was  already  born.  One  thing,  how- 
ever, is  ceitain — that  Quirinius,  a  person  honored  with  the  emperur's  entire  confi- 
dence, took  a  considerable  part,  throusrhout  this  entire  period,  in  the  affairs  of  the 
East,  and  of  Syria  in  particular.  And  we  do  not  see  what  objection  there  is,  fiom  a 
historical  point  of  view,  to  tiie  hypothesis  of  Gerlach,§  who  thinks  that,  while  Varus 
was  the  political  and  military  governor  of  Syria  (from  748),  Quirinius  administered 
its  financial  affaiis,  and  that  it  was  in  the  capacity  of  quaestor  that  lie  presided  over 
the  census  which  took  place  among  the  Jews  at  this  time.  Josephus  (A.ntiq.  xvi.  9. 
1,  2,  aud  Bell.  Jud.  i.  27.  2)  designates  these  two  magistrates,  the  prseses  and  tlie 
quajstor,  by  the  titles  of  rjyefiuveZ  and  ri'/q  2,vpiac  eiricraTovvTeS.  There  is  nothing, 
then,  to  hinder  our  giving  a  somewhat  more  general  meaning  to  the  verb  yye/aoveveLv, 
or  supposing,  we  may  add,  that  Luke  attributed  to  Quirinius  as  governor  a  function 
which  he  accomplished  as  qusestor.  In  this  case  Quirinius  would  have  already  pre- 
sided over  a  first  enumeration  under  Herod  in  749,  before  directing  the  better  known 
census  which  took  place  in  759  tj.c,  and  which  provoked  the  revolt  of  Judus  the 
Galilean.  || 

*  By  the  passage  in  Tac.  iii.  48.  "  De  Syria  Romanorum  provincia  ab  Cajsare 
Augusto  ad  Titum  Vespasianum,"  1854,  and  "  Ueber  den  Census  des  Quirinius, 
Evang.  Kirclienzeitung,"  1865.  No.  82. 

t  "  Res  gestae  Divi  August!.     Ex  monumento  Ancvrano." 

i  Published  in  the  last  place  by  Mommsen,  "  De  P.  S.  Quirinii  titulo  Tiburtino," 
1865.  §  "  Romische  Statthalter  in  Syrien,"  p.  88. 

I  This  certainly  is  only  a  hvpothesis  ;  but  we  do  not  see  what  ground  Eeim  has 
for  characterizing  it  as  untenable  ("  Gesch,  Jesu,"  t.  i.  p.  402). 


(■HA1-.  ir.  :  2-r.  ro 

Tli-;)sc  who  arc  not  satisfied  with  any  of  those  attempts  at  explanation  admit  an 
error  iu  Luke,  but  not  all  in  llie  panic  sense.  3Ieyer  thinks  that  jjycfini'Fveiv  in  Luke's 
text  must  keei)  its  ordinary  nK•aniIli,^  but  tliat  Luke,  in  employing  liiisterm  here,  con- 
fouuded  the  later  enumeration  of  the  year  (5  wilh  tliat  over  whicli  tliis  peisnn  presided 
ten  years  earlier  in  the  capacity  of  imperial  commissioner,  ychleii.'rmaclieraud  Bietk 
admit  a  greater  error  :  Luke  must  have  confounded  a  simple  sacerdotal  census,  which 
took  place  in  the  latter  part  of  Herod's  reign,  with  the  famous  enumeration  of  the 
yearC).  Strauss  and  Keim  go  further  still.  In  their  view,  the  enumeratiou  of  ver.s. 
1  and  2  is  a  pure  invention  of  Luke's,  either  to  account  for  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Belii- 
lehem.  as  required  by  popular  prejudice  (Strauss),  or  to  establish  a  significant  parallel 
between  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  the  complete  subjcctian  of  the  people  (Iveim,  p.  OOO). 
But  the  text  of  Luke  is  of  a  t.)0  strictly  historical  and  prosaic  character  to  furnish  the 
least  support  to  Kcim's  opinion.  That  of  Strauss  might  apply  to  a  Gospel  like  Mat- 
thew, which  lays  great  stress  on  the  connection  between  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethle- 
hem and  .Messianic  prophecy  ;  but  it  in  no  way  applies  to  Luke's  Gospel,  which  does 
not  contain  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  prophecy.  Schleicrmacher's  e.xplanat  on  is 
a  pure  conjecture,  and  one  which  borders  on  absurdity.  Tliat  of  Meyer,  which  in 
substance  is  very  nearly  the  opinion  of  Gerlach,  would  certainly  be  the  most  probable 
of  all  these  opinions.  Only  there  are  two  facts  which  hardly  allow  of  our  imputing 
to  Luke  a  confusion  of  facts  iu  this  place.  The  first  is,  that,  according  to  Acts 
5  :  :]7,  lu!  was  will  acquainted  with  the  later  eimmeration  which  occasioned  the  re- 
volt of  Judas  liie  Galilean,  and  which  he  calls,  iu  an  absolute  Avay,  the  enumeration. 
Luke  could  not  be  ii^uorant  that  this  revolt  took  place  on  the  occasion  of  the  dellni- 
live  annexation  of  Jiidea  to  the  empire,  and  consequently  at  some  distance  of  time 
after  the  death  of  Ilerod.  Now,  in  our  text,  he  places  the  enumeration  of  which  he 
is  speaking  in  the  reign  of  Herod  !  The  second  fact  is  the  perfect  knowledge  Luke 
liad,  according  to  'io  :  G-9,  of  the  subsequent  political  separation  between  Jiidca  and 
Galilee.  Now,  the  registration  of  a  Galilean  in  Judeu  supposes  that  the  unity  of  the 
Israclitish  monarchy  was  still  in  existence.  In  the  face  of  these  two  plain  facts,  it  is 
not  easy  to  admit  that  theie  was  any  confusion  on  his  part. 

May  we  be  permitted,  after  so  many  opinions  have  been  broached,  to  propose  a  new 
one  ?  We  have  seen  that  the  census  which  was  carried  out  by  Quirinius  in  759  u.c, 
tea  years  after  the  birth  of  Jesus,  made  a  deep  impression  iipon  all  the  people,  con- 
vincing tlicm  of  their  complete  political  servitude.  This  census  is  called  the  enumer- 
ation without  any  qualincation,  tlierefoie(Acts5  :  37)  ;  but  itmightalsobe  designated 
the  first  enumeration,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  first  census  executed  by  pagan  authority  ; 
and  it  would  be  in  this  somewliat  technical  sense  that  the  expression?}  a-oypnor/  rrpij-rj 
would  here  have  to  be  taken.  We  should  accentuate  avrri  (as  has  been  already  pro- 
posed) ai'T?},  which  presents  no  critical  difticulty,  since  the  ancient  mss.  have  no  ac- 
cents, and  understand  the  second  verse  thus  :  As  to  the  census  itself  called  the  first, 
it  took  place  under  the  government  of  Quirinius.*  Luke  would  break  off  to  remark 
that,  prior  to  the  well-known  enumeration  which  took  place  under  Quirinius,  and 
which  history  had  taken  account  of  irnder  the  name  of  the  first,  there  had  really  been 
another,  generally  lost  sight  cf,  which  was  the  very  one  here  in  question  ;  and  thus 
that  it  was  not  unadvisedly  that  he  spoke  of  a  census  anterior  to  the  first.     In  this 

*  We  spell  tills  name  Quirinius  (not  Quirinus)  in  conformity  with  the  authority  of 
all  the  documents,  B.  alone  and  some  mss.  of  the  It.  excepted. 


80  COMMEXTARY    OK    ST.   LUKE. 

•way,  first,  the  intention  of  tliis  parenthesis  is  clear  ;  second,  the  asyndeton  between 
vers.  1  and  2  is  explained  quite  in  a  natural  wuy  ;  and  third,  the  omission  of  the 
article  n  between  airoypadr]  and  npuTTi,  which  has  the  effect  of  niakinij  ?/  anoypa<pj) 
irjiurn  a  sort  of  proper  name  (like  ?/  kKiaTuTif/  Trpwr?/,  devrepa),  is  completely  justified. 

Vers.  3-7.*  The  terms  oi/coS  and  narpid,  house  and  family  (ver.  4),  have  not  an  in- 
vaiiable  meaning  in  the  LXX.  According  to  the  etymology  and  the  context,  the 
loTiiier  appears  to  have  here  the  wider  meaning,  and  to  denote  the  entire  connections 
of  David,  comprising  his  brethren  and  their  direct  descendants.  On  this  jouiuey  of 
xMaiy,  see  p.  70.  The  complement  with  Mary  appears  to  us  to  depend,  not  on  the 
verb  ano-ypilipaoOai,  to  be  enrolled,  as  Meyer,  Bleek,  etc.,  decide,  but  on  the  tnliie 
phrase  aveidrj  awo-ypdcpaaOui,  he  tcent  i<p  to  he  enrolled,  and  more  especially  on  7ie  iccnt 
tip.  For,  as  Wieseler  observes,  the  important  point  for  the  context  is,  that  she  went 
up,  not  that  she  was  enrolled.  And  the  words  in  apposition,  being  great  iciiJi  child, 
connect  themselves  much  better  with  the  idea  of  going  up  than  with  that  of  being  en- 
rolled. There  is  great  delicacy  in  the  received  reading,  which  has  also  the  best  sup- 
port critically,  his  espoused  wife.  The  substantive  indicates  the  character  in  which 
Mary  made  Ibe  journey  ;  the  participle  recalls  the  real  state  of  things.  The  Alex.,  not 
having  [)erceived  this  shadH  of  thought,  have  wrongly  omitted  ywaiKi.  From  the  last 
proposition  of  ver.  7,  in  which  (parPTj,  a  manger,  seems  opposed  to  Karu'/v/ja,  an  inn, 
some  interpreters  have  inferred  that  the  former  of  these  two  words  should  here  have 
n  wider  sense,  and  signify  a  stable.  But  this  meaning  is  unexampled.  We  have 
merely  to  supply  a  thought  :  "  in  the  manger,  because  they  were  lodging  in  the  stable 
seeing  that  .  .  ."  The  article  r/}  designates  the  manger  as  that  belonging  to  the 
stable.  The  Alex.,  therefore,  have  wrongly  omitted  it.  Did  this  stable  form  pait  of 
the  hostelry  ?  or  was  it,  as  all  the  apocryphal  writings  f  and  Justin  :]:  allege,  a  cave  near 
the  city  ?  In  the  time  of  Origen,§  a  giolto  was  shown  where  the  birth  of  Jesus  took 
place.  It  was  on  this  place  that  Helena,  the  mother  of  Constantino,  built  a  church  ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  Church  JNIarifc  de  Piaesepio  is  erected  on  the  same  site. 
The  text  of  Luke  would  not  be  altogether  incompatible  with  this  idea.  But  probably 
it  is  only  a  supposition,  resulting  on  the  one  hand  from  the  common  custom  in  the 
East  of  using  caves  for  stables,  ;ind  on  the  other  from  a  mistaken  application  to  the 
Messiah  of  Isa.  33  :  IG,  "  He  shall  dwell  in  a  lofty  cave,"  quoted  by  Justin.  The  expres- 
sion ^j'«^5or/i  naturally  implies  that  the  w^riter  believtd  Mary  had  other  cliildren  after- 
ward, otherwise  there  would  be  no  just  ground  for  the  use  of  this  term.  It  may  be 
said  that  Luke  employs  it  with  a  view  to  the  account  of  the  presentation  of  Jesus  in 
the  temple  as  a  first-born  son  (ver.  22  et  seq.).  But  tliis  connection  is  out  of  the  question 
in  Matt.  1  :  2o.  This  expression  proves  that  the  composition  of  the  narrative  dates  from 
a  time  posterior  to  the  birth  of  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus.  Thus  was  accom- 
plished, in  the  obscurity  of  a  stable,  the  fact  which  was  to  change  the  face  of  the 
world  ;  and  Mary's  words  (1  :  51),  "  He  hath  put  down  the  mighty,  and  exalted  the 
lowl3%"  were  still  further  verified.  "  The  weakness  of  God  is  stronger  than  men," 
sa3's  St.  Paul  ;  this  principle  prevails  throughout  all  this  history,  and  constitutes  its 
peculiar  character. 

*  Yer.  3.  JSi"-.  B.  D.  L.  Z.,  eavTov  instead  of  lOiav.  Ver.  5.  ^*  A.  D.  some  Mnn. 
a~oypa(peaOai  in  place  of  a-uypafnaOaL.  i*.  B.  D.  Jj.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  omit  yvvaiKc. 
Ver.  7.  is*.  A.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  omit  ?;  before  iparvi]. 

f  Protevangelium  of  James.  History  of  Josephy  Gospel  of  the  Infanc3^     "  Works 
of  Justin,"  edit,  of  Otto,  t.  i.  p.  269,  note. 
.  X  "  Dial.  c.  Tryph."  c.  78.  §  "  Contra  Celsum."  i.  11. 


cllAl'.    II.  :  b-14.  81 

2.  Tlie  appcariug  of  llie  iingels  :  vers.  8-14.  "  The  Gospel  is  prcaeljed  to  the 
p»,)r. "  Tin;  lulli)\viiig  uarialive  contaius  the  tirst  applieatiou  of  liiis  cliviuu  melhoii. 
Vu.s.  8  and  U  relate  the  appi  aniig  of  the  ang'el  to  the  shepherds  ;  vets.  lU-12,  his  dis- 
course ;  vers.  13  aud  14,  ihe  soug  of  the  heavenly  host. 

Vers.  8  aud  9.*  Aiuoug  the  Jews,  the  occupatiou  of  keepers  of  sheep  wns  held  in 
a  sort  of  couteuipt.  Accordiug  to  the  treatise  "  tianhedriu,"  they  were  not  to  he  ad- 
uiilted  as  witnesses  ;  aud  accordiug  to  the  tiealise  "  Aboda  Zara,"  succor  must  uot  bo 
given  to  sliepherds  aud  healheu.  Aypav'/.s'ti^,  properly,  to  malie  his  aypu^-  his  av/.t/,  his 
field  his  abode.  Columella  ("  De  re  rustica")  describes  these  uvXai  as  inclosures  sur- 
rounded by  high  walls,  sometimes  covered  in,  aud  sometimes  sub  dio  {oimn  to  the  sky). 
As  it  is  said  iu  a  passage  in  the  Talmud  that  the  flocks  are  kept  in  the  open  air  during 
(he  portion  of  the  year  between  the  Passover  and  the  early  autumnal  rains,  it  has  been 
inferred  from  this  narrative  of  the  shepherds  that  Jesus  must  have  beeu  born  dur- 
ing Ihe  summer,  Wieseler,  however,  observes  that  this  Tulmudic  determination  of 
the  matter  applies  to  the  season  passed  by  the  flocks  out  on  the  steppes,  far  away 
from  human  dwellings.  The  flocks  iu  this  case  were  not  so.  In  the  expression 
<{>v?.dToett'  0v/.uKui,  the  plural  qivAaKui  perhaps  denotes  that  they  "walched  in  turns. 
The  genitive  t//S  wKWi  must  be  taken  adverbially  ;  the  watch,  such  as  is  kept  by 
nigiit.  'I(5ow  (ver.  9)  is  omitted  by  the  Alex  But  it  is  probably  aulhentic  ;  it  de- 
picts tiie  .surprise  of  the  shepherds.  'E^rearT}  does  not  signify  that  the  angei  stood 
above  them  (comp.  eniaTuaa,  ver.  38).  It  is  our  survenir  (to  come  iiue.xpectedly). 
"We  must  translate,  as  in  1  :  11,  an  angel,  not  the  angel.  This  is  proved  by  the 
article  6  at  ver.  10  (.see  1  :  i:}),  By  ihe  ghry  of  ihe  Lord  must  be  here  understood,  as 
geu'iraiiy,  the  supernatural  light  with  which  God  appears,  whether  personally  or  by 
Ilis  representatives. 

Vers.  10-13. f  The  angel  first  announces  the  favorable  nature  of  his  message  ; 
for  at  the  sight  of  anv  supernaUiral  appearance  man's  first  feeling  is  fear,  'HriS, 
"  which,  iimxinuch  a.«  great,  is  mtended  for  the  whole  people."  Ver  11.  tho  mes- 
sage itself.  By  the  title  Saviour,  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  joy  (ver.  10).  is  ex- 
pressed the  piiy  angels  feel  at  the  sight  of  the  miserable  state  of  mankind.  The  title 
Christ,  anointed,  refers  to  the  prophecies  which  announce  this  Person,  and  the  long 
expeetati  )n  He  comes  t.-)  satisfy.  The  title  Lord  indicates  that  He  is  the  representa- 
tive of  tiie  divine  sovereignty.  This  latter  title  applies  also  to  His  relation  to  the 
angels.  The  periphrasis,  ilie  city  of  David,  hints  that  this  child  will  be  a  second 
Daviii.  Ver.  13,  the  sign  b}'  means  of  Avhich  the  shepherds  may  determine  the  truth 
of  this  message.  This  sign  has  nothing  divine  about  it  but  its  contrast  with  human 
glory.  There  could  not  have  been  many  other  children  born  that  niglit  in  Btllile- 
hem  :  and  among  these,  if  there  were  any,  no  other  certainly  would  have  a  manger 
for  its  cradle. 

Vers.  13  and  14.|  The  troop  of  angels  issues  forth  all  at  once  from  the  depths  of 
that  invisible  world  which  surrounds  us  on  every  side.     By  their  song  they  come  to 

*  Ver.  9.  I*.  B.  L.  Z.  omit  li^ov  after  koi.  !*'"-.  Z.  It""i.  Vg. ,  Oeov  instead  of  Kvpiov 
(seciind).     !!^*,  e-eAnfujiei'  avroii  instead  of  Trepe'^auvev  av^nvS. 

t  Ver.  13.  B.  Z.  omit  ro  before  orjueiov.  »*  D.  omit  ksi/ieiov.  »<=  B.  L.  P.  S.  Z. 
some  Mnn.  Syr.  Iipieriqu-  q,.  ^^],\  ^^t  before  Keiuei'oi'  (taken  from  ver.  16).  T.  K. 
read'?  n/  before  (pnrr?}.  with  F'^  K,  onlv  (taken  from  ver.  10). 

t  Vi-r,  14.  ltP''^i'i"'- Ir.  Or.,  etc.,  omit  f^  before  niffpwTO(?.  i>'=-  A.  B*  D.  It.  Vg. 
Ir.  and  Or.  (iu  the  Latin  translation)  read  evdoKias  in  place  of  evdonLa. 


82  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

give  the  key-note  of  the  adoration  of  mankind.  The  variation  of  some  Alex,  and  of 
the  Latin  translations,  which  read  the  gen.  evSoKiai  instead  of  the  noni.  evdoKia,  is 
preferred  in  the  modern  exegesis  :  *  "  peace  to  tlie  men  of  goodwill."  In  this  case 
the  song  divides  itself  into  two  parallel  propositions,  whether  the  words  andonearth 
be  referred  to  that  which  precedes,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest  places  and  on 
earth  ;  peace  to  the  men  of  goodwill  ;"  or,  which  is  certainly  preferable,  they  be 
connected  with  what  follows,  '  Glory  to  God  in  tiie  highest  places  ;  and  on  earth 
peace  to  the  men  of  goodwill."  In  this  second  interpretation  the  parallelitrm  is  com- 
plete :  tlie  three  ideas,  peace,  men,  on  eaith,  in  the  second  member,  answer  to  the 
three  ideas,  glory,  God.  in  the  highest  places,  in  the  lirst.  Men  make  their  praise 
arise  toward  God  in  the  heavens  ;  God  makes  His  peace  descend  toward  them  on  the 
earth.  The  gen.  ewhKiai,  of  goodwill,  may  refer  to  the  pious  dispositions  toward 
God  with  which  a  part  of  mankind  are  animated.  But  this  interpretation  is  hardly 
natural.  'EMoKia,  from  sMoKeiv,  to  delight  in,  n  j;Cn>  denotes  an  entirely  gracious 
goodwill,  the  initiative  of  which  is  in  the  subject  who  feels  it.  This  terms  does  not 
suit  the  relation  of  man  to  God,  but  only  that  of  God  to  man.  Therefore,  with  this 
reading,  we  must  explain  the  words  thus  :  Peace  on  earth  to  the  men  who  are  the 
objects  of  divine  goodwill.  But  this  use  of  the  genitive  is  singularly  rude,  and 
almost  barbarous  ;  the  «i««.o/5'owZwi7i;,  meaning  those  on  whom  goodwill  rests,  .  .  . 
is  a  mode  of  expression  without  any  example.  We  are  thus  brought  back  to  the 
reading  of  the  T.  R,  present  also  in  14  Mjj.,  among  which  are  L.  and  Z.,  wiiich 
generally  agree  with  the  Alex.,  the  Coptic  translation,  of  which  the  same  may 
be  said,  and  the  Ptschito.  With  this  reading,  the  song  consists  of  three  propositions, 
cf  which  two  are  parallel,  and  the  third  forms  a  link  between  the  two.  In  the  tirst, 
glor}"-  to  God  in  the  highest  places,  the  angels  demand  that,  from  the  lower  regiGus 
to  which  they  have  just  come  down,  from  the  bosom  of  humanity,  praise  shall  arise, 
which,  ascending  from  heavens  to  heavens,  shall  reach  at  last  the  supreme  sanc- 
tuary, the  highest  places,  and  there  glorify'  the  divine  perfections  that  shine  forth  in 
this  birth.  The  second,  peace  on  earth,  is  the  counterpart  of  the  first.  While  incit- 
ing men  to  praise,  the  angels  invoke  on  them  peace  from  God.  This  peace  is  such  as 
results  from  the  reconciliation  of  man  with  God  ;  it  contains  the  cause  of  the  cessa- 
tion of  all  war  here  below.  These  two  propositions  are  of  the  nature  of  a  desire  or 
prayer.  The  verb  understood  is  fcrrw,  let  it  be.  The  third,  which  is  not  connected 
Avilli  the  preceding  by  any  particle,  proclaims  the  fact  which  is  the  ground  of  this 
twofold  prayer.  If  the  logical  connection  were  expressed,  it  would  be  by  the  word 
for  Tins  fact  is  the  extraordinary  favor  shown  to  men  by  God,  and  which  is  dis- 
played in  the  gift  He  is  bestowing  upon  them  at  this  very  time.  The  sense  is,  "  for 
God  takes  pleasure  in  men."  In  speaking  thus,  the  angels  seem  to  mean,  God  has 
not  bestowed  as  much  on  us  (Heb.  2  :  IG).  The  idea  of  evdoida,  goodwill,  recalls  the 
tirst  proposition,  "  Glory  to  God  !"  while  the  expiession  towards  men  reminds  us  of 
t\\e  second,  "  Peace  on  earth  !"  For  the  word  evSoKia,  comp.  Eph.  1  :  5  and  Phil. 
2  :  13.  When  the  witnesses  of  the  blessing  sing,  how  could  they  who  are  the  objects 
of  it  remain  silent  ? 

3.  The  visit  of  the  shepherds  :  vers.  lo-20.     The  angel  had  notified  a  sign  to  the 
shepherds,  and  invited  them  to  ascertain  its  reality.     Tliis  injunction  they  obey. 

*  Professor  Godet  uses  this  phrase  as  he  elsewhere  uses  "  criticism,"  and  licrc  as 
elsewhere  controverts  its  conclusions. — J.  H. 


CHAP.  II.  :  15-20.  83 

Vers.  15-20.*  The  T.  R.  exhibits  in  ver.  15  u  singular  expression  :  "  And  it 
came  to  puss,  when  the  migcls  were  gone  away,  .  .  .  the  n)en,  the  shepherds, 
said  .  .  ."  The  impression  of  tlie  shepheids  when,  thy  angels  having  disap- 
peared, they  found  themselves  alone  among  meu,  could  uot  be  better  expressed. 
The  omission  of  the  words  nal  ol  uvdfju'Tvoi  in  the  Alex,  is  owing  to  the  strangeness  of 
this  form,  the  meaning  of  whicli  they  did  uot  understand.  The  koI  before  ol 
uvOpuTToi  id  doubtless  tlie  sign  of  the  apodosis,  like  the  Ilobiew  "]  ;  but  at  the  samu 
time  it  brings  out  the  close  connection  between  the  disappearance  of  the  angels  and 
the  act  of  the  shepherds,  as  they  addressed  themselves  to  tiie  duty  of  obeying  them. 
The  aorist  el-ov  o(  the  T.  R.  is  ceitaiuly  preferable  to  the  imperf.  €?.aXovi'  of  the 
Alex.,  since  it  refers  to  an  act  immediately  followed  by  a  result  :  "They  said  (not 
thej/  were  saying)  one  to  another.  Let  us  go  therefore."  The  term  /}///ua  denotes,  as 
"12"!  so  often  does,  a  word  in  so  far  as  accomplished  {yeyovoi).  "We  see  how  the  orig- 
inal Aramaean  form  is  carefully  preserved  even  to  the  minutest  details.  'Avd  in 
U.VEV0OV  expi esses  the  discovery  in  succession  of  the  objects  enumerated,  ''^yvd'oiaav 
or  diEyvupiaav  (Alcx.),  ver.  17,  may  signify  to  verify  ;  in  the  tifteenlh  verse,  however, 
fyvuiuaav  signifies  to  make  knotcn,  and  in  ver.  17  it  is  the  most  natural  meaning. 
There  is  a  giadation  lieic  :  heaven  had  revealed  ;  and  now,  by  the  care  of  men,  pub- 
licity goes  on  increasing.  This  sense  also  puts  the  seventeenth  verse  in  more  diicct 
conncclitm  wilii  what  follows.  The  comp')und  diayvuj)  i^eiv,  to  divulge,  appears  to  us 
for  this  rea.sou  to  be  prefeiTcd  to  the  simple  foim  (in  tlie  Alex.). 

Vers.  18-20  describe  the  various  impressions  produced  by  what  had  taken  place. 
In  the  eighteenth  veise,  a  vague  surprise  in  the  greater  part  (all  those  who  heard). 
On  the  other  hand  ((5t),  ver.  10,  a  profound  impression  and  exercise  of  mind  in  Mary. 
First  of  all,  she  is  careful  to  store  up  all  the  facts  in  her  mind  with  a  view  to  preserve 
thf-m  (avvTijpe'iv) ;  but  this  first  and  indispensable  effort  is  closely  connected  with 
the  fuithcr  an.l  subordinate  aim  of  comparing  and  combining  these  facts,  in  order  to 
discover  the  difiue  idea  which  explains  and  connects  them.  What  a  difference  be- 
tween this  ihoughtfulness  and  the  superficial  astonishment  of  the  people  around  her  I 
There  is  more  in  the  joyful  feelings  and  adoration  of  the  shepherds  (ver.  20)  than  in 
the  impressions  of  those  who  simply  heard  their  story,  but  less  than  in  Mary. 
Aofi^ety,  to  glorify,  expresses  the  feeling  of  the  greatness  of  the  woik  ;  a'lve'tv,  to 
l)raise,  refers  to  ihe  goodness  displayed  in  it.  Closely  connected  as  they  are,  the  two 
participles /a'«/"cf  and  see/i  can  only  refer  to  what  took  place  in  the  presence  of  the 
shepherds  after  they  reached  the  stable.  They  were  told  the  remarkable  occurrences 
that  had  preceded  the  birth  of  Jesus  ;  it  is  to  this  that  the  word  heard  refers.  And 
they  beheld  the  manger  and  the  infant  ;  this  is  what  is  expressed  by  the  word  ^ecn. 
And  the  whole  was  a  confirmation  of  the  angel's  message  to  them.  They  Avere  con- 
vinced that  they  had  not  been  the  victims  of  an  hallucination.  Tiie  reading  vTriarpEipav 
(I hey  returned  thence)  is  evidently  to  be  preferred  to  the  ill-supported  reading  of  the 
T.  R.,  in^fa-peipav  (Ihej'  returned  to  their  flocks). 

Whence  were  these  interesting  details  of  Ihe  impression  made  on  the  shepherds 
and  those  wiio  listened  to  their  story,  and  nf  the  feelings  of  Mary,  obtained  ?  How 
can  any  one  regard  them  as  a  mere  embellishment  of  the  author's  imagination,  or  as 

*  Ver.  15.  i*.  B.  L.  Z.  many  Mnn.  Svr"'^''.  TtP'«"i"«.  Vg.  Or.  omit  Km  oi  avftixjrroi. 
».  B.  It""''  ,  e/^?.ow  instead  of  rtrrnv.  Ver.  17.  4*  B.  D.  \j.  Z.,  ryvupianv  instead  of 
thryvupina-K  Ver.  20.  Insiead  of  cTfarpe^av,  the  reading  of  T.  R  and  a  part  of  the 
Mnn..  all  Ihc  other  document.^,  I'Trfarpn/wi'. 


8-4  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

the  offspring  of  legend  ?  The  Aramrean  colorinc:  of  the  narrative  indicates  an  ancient 
source.  The  oftener  we  read  tiie  nineleenlli  verse,  ilie  more  assured  "we  feel  that 
Mary  was  the  first  and  real  author  of  this  whole  narrative.  This  pure,  simple,  and 
private  history  was  composed  by  her,  and  preserved  for  a  certain  time  in  an  oral 
form  until  some  one  committed  it  to  writing,  whose  work  fell  into  the  hands  of 
Luke,  and  was  reproduced  by  him  in  Greek. 


SIXTH    NARRATIVE. — CHAP.    2  :  21-40. 

Circumcision  and  Presentation  of  Jesus. 

This  narrative  comprises— 1.  The  circumcision  of  Jesus  (ver.  21)  :  2,  His  presen- 
tation in  the  temple  (vers.  22-38)  ;  3.  A  historical  conclusion  (vers.  39,  40). 

1.  The  circumcision  :  ver.  21.  It  was  under  the  Jewish  form  that  Jesus  was  to 
realize  the  ideal  of  human  existence.  The  theocracy  was  the  surrounding  prepared 
of  God  for  the  development  of  the  Son  of  man.  So  to  His  entrance  into  life  by  birth 
succeeds,  eight  days  after.  His  entrance  into  the  covenant  by  circumcision.  "  Born 
of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,"  says  St.  Paul,  Gal.  4  :  4,  to  exhibit  the  connection 
between  these  two  facts.  There  is  a  brevity  in  the  account  of  the  circumcision  of 
Jesus  which  contrasts  with  the  fuller  account  of  the  circumcision  of  John  the  Baptist 
(chap.  1).  This  difference  is  natural  ;  the  simply  Jewish  ceremony  of  circumcision 
has  an  importauce,  in  the  life  of  the  latest  representative  of  the  theocracy,  wiiich 
does  not  belong  to  it  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  who  only  entered  into  the  Jewish  foim  of 
existence  to  pass  through  it. 

Ver.  21.*  The  absence  of  the  article  before  fjuepni  oktu  is  due  to  the  determinative 
rnv  Tveptre/ifiv  avrov  which  follows.  In  Hebrew  the  construct  slate  (subst.  with  com- 
plemeal)  excludes  the  article.  The  false  reading  of  the  T.  R.,  to  ■naidiov  instead  of 
uvTov,  ijroceeds  from  the  cause  which  has  occasioned  the  greater  part  of  the  errors  in 
this  text,  the  necessities  of  public  reading.  As  the  section  to  be  read  began  with  tliis 
verse,  it  was  necessary  to  substitute  the  noun  for  the  pronoun.  Kai,  while  marking 
the  apodosis,  brings  out  the  intimate  connection  between  the  circumcision  and  the 
giving  of  the  name.     This  kuI  is  almost  a  Tore,  then. 

2.  The  presentation  :  vers.  22-38.  And  first  the  sacrifice,  vers.  22-24.f  After 
the  circumcision  there  were  two  other  rites  to  observe.  One  concerned  the  mother. 
Levitically  unclean  for  eight  days  after  the  birth  of  a  son,  and  for  fourteen  days 
after  that  of  a  daugliter,  the  Israelitish  mother,  after  a  seclusion  of  Ihiity-three  days 
in  the  first  case,  and  of  double  this  t'mtj  in  the  second,  had  to  offer  in  the  temple  a 
sacrifice  of  purification  (Lev.  12).  The  other  rite  had  reference  to  the  child  ;  when 
it  was  a  first-born,  it  had  to  be  redeemed  by  a  sum  of  money  from  consecration  to  the 
service  of  God  and  the  sanctuary.  In  fact,  the  tribe  of  Levi  had  been  chosen  for  this 
office  simply  to  take  the  place  of  the  first-born  males  of  all  th^  families  of  Israel  ;  and 
in  order  to  keep  alive  a  feeling  of  His  rights  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  God  had 
fixed  a  ransom  to  be  paia  for  every  first-born  male.     It  was  five  shekels,  or,  reckon- 

*  !*.  A.  B.  and  11  Mj].  100  Mnn.  lip'^'que  read  avrov  in  place  of  to  naidwv,  the 
reading  of  T.  R.  with  6  Mjj.  Syi'^'^^ 

f  Ver.  22.  Instead  of  ni;? 77c.  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  only  some  Mnn., 
and  of  avrov,  which  is  the  reading  of  D.  and  6  Mnn.,  all  the  other  authorities  read 
avruv. 


CHAP.  II.  :  21-28.  85 

.u<jr  Ihe  shekel  at  2s.  4(7.,*  ncfirly  12s.  (Ex.  13  :  2  ;  Num.  8  :  16,  18  :  15).  Vers.  22  nnd 
23  ix'fer  to  the  ransom  of  the  fhihl  ;  ver.  2-4  to  ^Mary's  sacrifice.  AvtQv,  their  puri- 
iication,  IS  certainly  the  true  reading.  This  pronoun  refers  primarily  to  Mary,  then 
to  Joseph,  who  is,  as  it  were,  involved  in  her  uncileanness,  and  obliged  to  go  up  with 
her.  Every  detail  of  the  narrative  is  jiistitied  wilii  tlie  greatest  care  in  the  three 
verses  by  a  lega'  presciiptian.  The  sacrifice  for  tlie  mother  (ver.  24)  consisted  prop- 
erly of  tlie  offering  of  a  lamb  as  a  sin-offering.  But  wiieu  the  family  was  poor,  the 
offering  was  limited  to  a  pair  of  pigeons  or  two  turtledoves  (Lev.  12  :  8). 

From  the  twenty-fifth  verse  Simeon  becomes  the  centre  of  the  picture  ;  vers. 
25-^:8  relate  his  coming  in  ;  vers.  29-32,  his  song  ;  vers.  33-35,  his  address  to  the 
parents. 

Vers.  25-28. f  In  times  of  spiritual  degeneracy,  when  an  official  clergy  no  longer 
cultivates  anything  but  the  form  of  religion,  its  spirit  letircs  among  the  obscurer 
members  of  the  religious  community,  and  creates  for  itself  unofficial  organs,  often 
from  the  lowest  classes.  Simeon  and  Anna  are  representatives  of  this  spontaneous 
priesthood.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  Simeon  might  be  the  rabbi  of  this  name, 
son  of  the  famous  Hillel,  and  father  of  Gamaliel.  But  this  Smieon,  who  became 
president  of  (he  Sanhedrim  in  the  year  13  of  our  era,  could  hardly  be  the  one  men- 
tioned by  Luke,  who  at  the  birth  of  Jesu-J  was  already  an  old  man.  Further,  this 
conjecture  is  scarcely  compatible  with  the  religious  character  of  Luke's  Simeon. 
The  name  was  one  of  the  commonest  in  Israel.  The  W\a\  just  denotes  positive  qual- 
ities ;  fearing  God — A.  V.  devout  {Ev/.ni3rjS  appears  to  be  tlie  true  reading) — watch- 
fulness with  regard  to  evil.  The  separation  of  irvevfia  from  uyiov  by  the  verb  tjv  in 
the  greater  part  of  the  Mss.  gives  prominence  to  the  idea  of  the  adjective.  An  influ- 
ence rested  upon  him,  and  this  influence  was  holy.  Xpr)fiari(eiv,  properly,  to  do  busi- 
ness ;  thence,  to  act  officially,  communicate  a  decision,  give  forth  an  oracle.  The 
reading  Kvpioi'  has  neither  probabiiily  nor  authority  ;  Kvpiov  is  the  genitive  of  posses- 
sion :  the  Christ  whom  .Jehovah  gives  and  .sends.  There  arc  critical  moments  in  life, 
when  everything  depends  on  ihimediate  submission  to  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit.  The 
■words  fi'  ru)  nvei/iari,  in  apirit,  or  hy  the  spirit,  do  not  denote  a  state  of  ecsta.sy,  but  a 
higher  impulse.  A  contradictioti  has  been  found  between  the  term  yove'ii,  parents, 
and  the  preceding  narrative  of  the  miraculous  birth  ;  and  Meyer  finds  in  this  facta 
proof  that  Luke  avails  himself  here  of  a  different  document  from  that  which  he  pre- 
viously used.  What  criticism  !  The  word  parentu  is  simply  used  lo  indicate  the 
character  in  which  Joseph  and  Mary  appeared  at  this  time  in  the  temple  and  pre- 
sented the  child.  The  nai  of  the  twenty-eighth  verse  indicates  the  apodosis  ;  exactly 
as  if  the  circumstantial  ii' rt5  e;CTayay£(>  .  .  .  formed  a  subordinate  proposition  ; 
this  Kdi,  at  the  same  time,  brings  out  the  close  connection  between  the  act  of  tlie 
parents  who  present  the  child  and  that  of  Simeon,  who  is  found  there  opening  hi.s 
arms  to  receive  it.  By  the  term'  receive,  the  text  makes  Simeon  the  true  priest,  who 
acts  for  the  time  on  behalf  of  God. 

Vers.  29-32.  "  Lord,  now  lettest  Thou  Thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  according  to 

*  Meylau,  "  Dictionnaire  Biblique,"  p.  353. 

f  Ver.  25.  »*  K,  r.  FI.  10  Mnn.  read  evaeSri'^  instead  nf  ev7a3r]<;.  Ayinv  is  placed 
after  v^  by  ».  A.  B.  L.  and  14  oth'T  Mjj.  and  almost  all  the  Mnn.,  while  the  T.  R. 
places  it  before  vv,  with  D.  some  Mnn.  ItP'«>-iH"'',  Syr.  Ver.  26.  Instead  of  irpiv  n,  »■. 
B.  and  4  ^l]]  .  npiv  t]  nv.  ;  IS*  c.  f(j5  av.  Instead  of  Kvpiov,  A  b.  c.  Cop.,  nv,'un>. 
Ver.  28.  i(.  B.  L.  11.  ll""'i.  Ir.  omit  uvrov  after  «;««/«:. 


86  COiniEXTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Thy  word  :  30  For  mine  eyes  have  seen  Thy  halvalion,  31  Which  Thou  hast  prepared 
before  the  face  of  all  people  ;  33  A  lighl  to  lighlen  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  thy 
people  Israel." 

The  vivid  insight  and  energetic  conciseness  which  characterize  this  song  remind 
us  of  the  compositions  of  David.  Simeon  represents  him.self  under  the  image  of  a 
sentinel  whom  his  master  has  placed  in  an  elevated  position,  and  charged  lo  look  for 
the  appearance  of  a  star,  and  then  announce  it  to  the  world.  He  sees  this  long-de- 
sired star  ;  he  proclaims  its  rising,  and  asks*  lo  l)e  relieved  of  the  post  he  has  occu- 
pied sn  long.  In  the  same  way,  at  the  opening  of  iEschylus'  "  Agamemnon,"  when 
the  seutmtl,  set  to  watch  for  the  appearing  of  the  fiie  that  is  to  announce  the  taking 
of  Troy,  beholds  at  last  the  signal  so  impatiently  expected,  he  sings  at  once  bolli 
the  victory  of  Greece  and  his  own  release.  Beneath  each  of  these  terms  in  ver.  29  is 
found  the  figure  which  we  have  just  indicated  :  vvv,  now,  that  is  lo  say,  at  last,  after 
such  long  waiting  !  The  word  anoAveiv,  to  release,  discharge,  contains  the  two  ideas 
of  relieving  a  sentinel  on  duty,  and  deliveiing  from  the  burden  of  life.  These  two 
ideas  are  mixed  up  together  here,  because  for  a  long  time  past  Simeon's  earthly  ex- 
istence had  been  prolonged  sunply  In  view  of  this  special  mandate.  Tiie  term 
dianoTa,  lord,  expresses  Simeon's  acknowledgment  of  God's  absolute  right  over  him. 
'P^fid  aov,  Thy  tcord,  is  an  allusion  to  the  word  of  command  which  the  commander 
gives  to  the  sentinel.  The  expression,  in  pence.,  answers  to  the  word  now,  witii  which 
the  song  begins.  This  soul,  which  for  a  long  time  past  has  been  all  expectation,  has 
now  found  the  satisfaction  it  desired,  and  can  depart  from  earth  in  perfect  peace. 

Vers.  80  and  31  form,  as  it  were,  a  second  strophe.  Simeon  is  now  free.  For  his 
eyes  have  seen.  The  term  aurripiov,  which  we  can  only  translate  by  salvation,  is 
equivalent  neither  to  oun'/p,  Saviour,  nor  to  curripia,  salvation.  This  word,  the  neuter 
of  the  adjective  auTr/pioc,  savin//,  denotes  an  apparatus  fitted  to  save.  Simeon  sees  in 
this  little  child  the  means  of  deliverance  which  God  is  giving  to  the  woild.  The 
term  prepare  is  connected  with  this  sense  of  aurr/picv:  we  make  ready  an  apparatus. 
This  notion  of  preparation  may  be  applied  to  the  entire  theocracy,  l)y  which  God  had 
for  a  long  time  past  been  preparing  for  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah.  But  it  is 
simpler  to  apply  this  term  to  the  birth  of  the  infant.  The  complement,  in  the  sight 
of,  must  be  explained  in  this  case  by  an  intermediate  idea,  "  Thou  hast  prepared  this 
means  for  placing  before  the  eyes  of  ..."  that  is  to  say,  in  order  thsit  all  may 
have  the  advantage  of  it.  It  is  a  similar  expression  to  that  of  Ps.  23  :  5,  "  Thou  hast 
prepared  a  table  before  me."  Perhaps  this  expression,  in  the  sight  of  allnations,  is 
connected  with  the  fact  that  this  scene  took  place  in  the  court  of  the  Gtntiks.  The 
universalism  contained  in  these  words,  all  nations,  in  no  way  goes  beyond  the  hori- 
zon of  the  prophets,  of  Isaiah  in  particular  (Isa.  42  :  6,  60  :  3)  ;  it  is  peifectly  appio- 
priate  in  the  mouth  of  a  man  like  Simeon,  to  whom  the  prophetic  spirit  i-  altiibuted. 
Tile  collective  idea,  all  people,  is  divided,  in  the  third  strophe,  into  its  two  esseuttal 
elements,  the  Gentiles  and  Israel.  From  Genesis  to  Revelation  this  is  the  great  dual- 
ism of  history,  the  contrast  which  determines  its  phases.  The  Gentiles  are  here 
placed  first.  Did  Simeou  already  perceive  that  the  salvation  of  the  Jews  could  only 
be  realized  after  the  enlightenment  of  the  heathen,  and  by  this  means  ?  We  shall  t^ee 
what  a  profound  insight  this  old  man  had  into  the  moral  condition  of  the  geneialinn 

*  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  good  reason  for  making  the  words  noic  lettcst  a 
prayer.  The  whole  hymn  is  praise.  "He  accepts  this  sight  as  sign  of  his  release: 
noli)  thou  art  letting. — J.  11. 


ciiAi'.   11.  :  31-34.  87 

Jn  which  he  lived.  Guitled  by  all  (hat  Isaiah  had  foretold  respecting  the  future  uu- 
beliof  of  Is^raei,  he  niiiiht  have  uirived  at  llie  convietiou  that  his  people  weie  uixfut 
to  reject  the  Messiah  (vur.  35).  The  idea  of  salvation  is  presented  under  two  diireient 
asi)e(;ts,  accordiug  as  il  is  applied  to  the  healhen  or  to  the  Jews.  To  the  llrsl  liiis 
clii'd  biiaijs  light,  to  the  second  glory.  The  heathen,  in  fact,  are  sunk  in  ignorance. 
In  Isa.  25  :  7  they  are  represented  as  enveloped  in  a  thick  mist,  and  covertd  with 
darkness.  This  covering  is  taken  away  by  the  JMessiah.  The  genitive  iOr<iy  may  lie 
rei;arded  as  a  genitive  of  the  subject,  tlie  enlightenniont  which  the  heatiieu  ucei.f. 
Tile  heathen  might  also  be  made  tbe  object  of  the  eulighteninent,  the  light  whereby 
t!ie  covering  which  keeps  thorn  in  darkness  is  done  away,  and  they  themselves  are 
brought  into  open  day.  But  this  second  sense  is  somewhat  forced.  While  the 
ignorant  heathen  receive  in  this  child  (he  light  of  divine  revelation,  of  which  they 
have  hitherto  been  deprived,  the  humiliated  Jews  are  delivered  byllim  from  their  re- 
proach, and  obtain  the  glory  which  was  promised  them.  Springing  from  among 
them,  Jesus  appears  tlieir  crown  in  the  eyes  of  mankind.  But  this  will  be  at  the  end, 
not  at  the  commencement  of  the  Messianic  drama.  In  this  song  all  is  original,  con- 
cise, enigmatical  even,  as  the  words  of  an  oracle.  In  these  brief  pregnant  sentences 
is  c.inlaiued  the  substance  of  the-  history  of  future  ages.  Neither  the  liackueyed  in- 
ventions of  legend,  nor  any  preconceived  dogmatic  views,  have  any  share  in  the  com- 
position of  this  joyous  Ij'ric. 

Vers.  3;5-8.j."""  A  carnal  satisfaction,  full  of  delusive  hopes,  might  easily  liave 
taken  possession  of  the  hearts  of  these  parents,  especially  of  the  mother's,  on  hearing 
such  words  as  these.  But  Simeon  infuses  into  his  message  the  drop  of  bitterness 
which  no  joy,  not  even  holy  joy,  ever  wants  in  a  world  of  sin.  Instead  of  Joseph, 
whicli  is  tiie  reading  of  T.  R.,  the  Alex,  read  :  Ms  father.  We  should  have  thought 
that  the  former  of  these  two  readings  was  a  dogmatic  correction,  but  that  at  ver.  27 
the  T.  li.  itself  reads  the  word  yoveli,  parents.  But  the  Alexandrian  reading  is  sup- 
ported by  the  fact  that  the  ancient  tianslations,  the  Peschito  and  Italic,  have  it. 
Strauss  finds  something  strange  in  the  wonder  of  Joseph  and  Ma^3^  Did  they  not 
already  know  all  liiis  '!  But  in  the  first  place,  what  Simeon  has  just  said  of  the  part 
this  child  would  sustain  toward  the  heathen  goes  beyond  all  that  had  hitherto  been 
told  them.  And  then  especially,  they  might  well  be  astonished  to  hear  an  unknown 
person,  like  Simeon,  express  himself  about  this  child  as  a  man  completely  initiated 
into  the  secret  of  His  high  destiny. 

In  the  expression,  he  blessed  them,  ver.  34,  the.  word  them  refers  solel}'  to  the 
parents  :  the  child  is  expressly  distinguished  from  them  {this  child).  Simeon  ad- 
dresses himself  specially  to  Mary,  as  if  he  had  discerned  (hat  a  peculiar  tie  united  her 
to  the  child,  'hhv,  behold,  announces  the  revelation  of  an  unexpected  truth.  In  Isa. 
8  :  14  (he  Messiah  is  represented  as  a  rock  on  which  believers  find  lefuge,  but  v/hero- 
on  the  rel)ellious  are  broken.  Simeon,  whose  proplietic  gift  was  developed  under  tho 
influence  of  the  ancient  oracles,  simply  reproduces  liere  this  thought.  The  words,  is 
act  for,  make  it  clear  that  (his  sifting,  of  which  the  [Messiah  will  be  the  occasion, 
forms  part  of  the  divine  plan.  The  images  of  a  fall  and  a  rising  again  are  explained 
by  that  empIo3'ed  by  Isaiah.     The  expression,  signal  of  contradiction  (a  sign  which 

*  Ver.  38.  S.  B.  D.  L.  some  IVInn.,  o  irnTJin  avmv  Kai  tj  utjttjp  avrov,  instead  of 
Iw(Tf0  Kui  n  uriTTift  nvTov,  which  is  tlie  reading  of  T.  R.  with  13  ^Ijj..  the  greater  p.-irt 
of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Ver.  3o.  B.  L.  Z.  omit  fk  after  aoi'.  it*  adds  Trovr/pot  after 
^la/.u}  LO/ioi. 


88  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

shall  be  fpoken  ngaiiut,  A.  V.)>  may  be  undcrstoud  in  two  ways  :  either  it  is  an  ap- 
pearing about  ■which  ineu  argue  coutiadictorily,  or  it  is  a  sign  which  excites  oppo- 
sition directly  it  appears.  Tulcen  in  tlie  first  sense,  this  expression  would  reproduce 
the  ideas  of  a  fall  and  a  rising  again,  and  would  be  a  simple  repetition  of  that  which 
precedes  ;  in  the  second  sense,  it  wouhi  merely  recall  the  idea  of  a  fall,  and  would 
form  the  transition  to  what  follows.  Will  not  the  general  unl)elief  of  the  nation  be 
the  cause  of  the  sad  lot  of  the  Messiah,  and  of  the  sufferings  that  will  fill  the  heart  of 
His  mother  ?  Tlie  second  sense  is  therefore  preferable.  The  gradation  kol  aov  6^ 
avTJji,  iky  own  also,  ver.  35,  is  in  this  way  readily  understood.  The  6e  of  the  received 
reading  is  well  suited  to  the  contexi.  "  The  opposition  excited  by  this  child  will  go 
so  far,  that  thine  own  heart  will  be  pierced  by  it."  It  is  natural  to  refer  what  follows 
to  the  grief  of  Mary,  when  she  shall  behold  the  rejection  and  murder  of  her  son. 
Some  such  words  as  those  of  Isaiah,  "  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,"  and  of 
Zechariah,  "  They  shall  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced,"  had  enlightened 
Simeon  respecting  this  mystery.  Bleek  has  proposed  another  explanation,  which  is 
less  natural,  although  ingenious  :  "  Thou  shalt  feel  in  thine  own  heart  this  contra- 
diction in  regard  to  thy  son,  when  thou  thyself  shalt  be  seized  with  doubt  in  regard 
to  His  mission,"  But  the  image  of  a  sword  must  denote  something  more  violent  than 
simple  doubt,  'ivxv,  the  soul,  as  the  seat  of  the  psychical  affections,  and  consequently 
of  maternal  love.  It  has  been  thought  that  the  following  proposition,  in  order  that 
the  tliougJUs  of  many  .  .  .  could  not  be  connected  with  that  whicli  immediately 
precedes  ;  and  for  this  reason  some  have  tried  to  treat  it  as  a  parenthesis,  and  connect 
them  order  that  with  the  idea,  Tlih  is  set  .  .  .  (ver.  34').  But  this  violent  con- 
struction is  ailogelher  unnecessary.  The  lialred  of  which  Jesus  will  lie  the  object 
(ver.  3-1),  and  which  will  pierce  the  heart  of  Mary  with  poignant  grief  (ver.  35),  will 
bring  out  those  hostile  thoughts  toward  God  which  in  this  people  lie  hidden  under  a 
veil  of  Pharisaical  devotion.  Simeon  discerned,  beneath  the  outward  forms  of  Jew- 
ish piety,  their  love  of  human  glory,  their  hypocrisy,  avarice,  and  hatred  of  God  ;  and 
he  perceives  that  this  child  will  prove  the  occasion  for  all  this  hidden  venom  being 
poured  forth  from  the  recesses  of  their  hearts.  In  order  that  has  the  same  sense  as  is 
set  for.  God  does  not  will  the  evil  ;  but  he  wills  that  the  evil,  when  present,  should 
.show  itself :  this  is  an  indispensable  condition  to  Its  being  either  healed  or  con- 
demned. TioTiluv,  of  many,  appears  to  be  a  pronoun,  the  complement  of  Kapdiuv  (the 
hearts  of  many)  rather  than  an  adjective  (of  maiiy  hearts)  ;  comp.  Rom.  5  :  16.  The 
term  SiaAoyiajuot,  thoughts,  has  usually  an  unfavorable  signification  in  the  N.  T.  ;  it 
indicates  the  uneasy  working  of  the  understanding  in  the  service  of  a  bad  heart.  The 
epithet  ttovtjpol,  added  by  the  Sinaiticus,  is  consequently  superfluous.  These  words 
of  Simeon  breathe  a  concentrated  indignation.  We  feel  that  this  old  man  knows 
more  about  the  moral  condition  of  the  people  and  their  rulers  than  he  has  a  mind  to 
'.ell. 

Vers.  36-38.*  Anna  presents,  in  several  respects,  a  contrast  to  Simeon.  The 
latter  came  into  the  temple  impelled  by  the  Spirit  ;  Anna  lives  there.     Simeon  has 

*  Ver.  37.  !*.  A.  B.  L.  Z.  It«"i  ,  fu?  instead  of  u?.  »*,  eSSnfiTjiwvTa  instead  of 
oyftorjKovTa.  The  Alex,  omit  nno  rov  lepov.  Ver.  38.  9  Mjj.  (Alex.)  some  ]Mnn.,  icat 
ff.vTrj  T7),  instead  of  nai  avrrj  avrrj  tt?.  A.  B.  D.  L.  X.  Z. ,  tg>  Qeo.  instead  of  rw  kvpiu, 
the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  14  Mjj.  all  the  Mnn.  Syr.  lipi^ii"".  J*.  B_.  Z.  someMnn. 
jipierique^  gy, »ch  jf.  otiiit  sv  betweeu  '/.vrpocw  and  lepovoa7.7iu.,  which  is  the  reading  of 
T.  R.,  with  15  -Mjj.,  the  greater  part  of  the  ]Mun.,  etc. 


CHAP.  II.  :  3G-38.  89 

no  desire  but  to  die  ;  Annu  seems  to  recover  tiie  vigor  of  3'outh  to  celebrate  tbe  Mes- 
siah. The  words  ;/  ovk  ii(piaTnTo  (ver.  37)  might  be  mside  the  predicute  of  h^.  luid  Iho 
ivvo  avTT)  wlncii  separate  them,  two  appjsilions  of  'kwa.  But  it  is  simpler  to  under- 
Bland  iiv  in  the  sense  of  there  was,  or  there  teas  there,  and  to  regard  ?/  ovk  cKpiararo  as 
an  appendix  intended  to  bring  back  the  narrative  from  the  description  of  Anna's  per- 
6-jn  to  the  actual  fact.  Meyer,  who  understands  ?>  in  the  same  way,  begins  a  fresh 
proposition  wilh  the  avn]  which  immediately  follows,  and  assigns  to  it  avOufio?^o}eiTo 
for  its  verb  (ver.  u8).  Thi3  construction  is  less  natural,  especially  on  account  of  the 
intermediate  clauses  {ver.  37).  Upo>.hi3T}Kvia  tv  is  a  Hebraism  (especially  with  nollali), 
1  :  7.  The  moral  purily  of  Anna  is  expressed  by  the  term  TrnpOevta,  virginity,  and  by 
the  long  duration  of  her  M-idowhood.  Do  the  84  years  date  from  her  birth,  or  from 
the  death  cf  her  husbaiul  V  In  the  latter  case,  supposing  that  she  was  married  at  15. 
she  would  have  been  lOG  years  old.  This  sense  is  not  impossible,  and  it  more  easily 
accounts  perhaps  for  such  a  precise  reckoning.  Instead  of  ui,  ahovt,  the  Alex,  read 
Xui.iDitil,  ft  reading  which  appears  preferable;  for  the  restriction  about  would  only 
be  admissible  with  a  round  number — 80,  for  example.  Did  Anna  go  into  the' 
temple  in  the  morning,  to  spend  the  whole  day  there  ?  or  did  she  remain  there  dur- 
ing the  night,  spreading  her  poor  pallet  somewhere  in  the  court  ?  Luke's  expression 
is  compatible  with  either  supposition.  What  he  means  is,  that  she  was  dead  to  the 
outer  world,  and  only  lived  for  the  service  of  God,  "We  could  not,  with  Tischendoif, 
following  the  Alex.,  erase  one  of  the  two  avrr)  (ver.  38)  Both  can  be  perfectly  ac- 
counted for,  and  the  omission  is  easilj'  explained  by  the  repetition  of  the  word. 
'kvTi,  in  the  compound  avOu/xo'/oyelTo,  might  refer  to  a  kind  of  autiphony  between 
Anna  and  Simeon.  But  in  the  LXX.  this  compound  verb  corresponds  simply  to  pi^il 
(Ps.  79  :  13) ;  avH  only  expresses,  therefore,  the  idea  of  payment  in  acknowledgment 
which  is  inherent  in  an  act  of  thanksgiving  (as  in  the  French  word  reconnaissance). 
The  Alex,  reading  raj  Gfu,  to  God,  is  probably  a  correction,  arising  from  the  fact  that 
in  the  0.  T.  the  veib  avOufioloyelaOai  never  governs  anything  but  God,  It  is  less 
natural  to  regard  the  received  reading  as  resulting  from  the  pronoun  airov.  Him,  which 
follows.  We  need  not  refer  the  imperf  ,  she  spake,  merely  to  the  time  then  present  ; 
she  was  doing  it  continually.  The  reading  of  some  Alex.,  "  those  who  were  looking 
for  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem,"  is  evidently  a  mistaken  imitation  of  the  expression. 
the  consoldilonof  Israel  {y ex.  25).  The  words,  in  Jtri/salem,  naturally  depend  on  the 
participle,  that  looted  for.  The  people  were  divided  into  three  parties.  The  Pharisees 
expected  an  outv.-ard  triumph  from  the  Messiah  •  the  Sadducees  expected  nothing  ; 
between  them  were  the  true  faithful,  who  expected  the  consolation,  that  is,  deliver- 
ance. It  was  the.se  last,  who,  according  to  Ezekiel's  expression  (chap.  9),  cried  for 
all  the  abominations  of  Jerusalem,  that  were  represented  by  Anna  and  Simeon  ;  and 
it  was  among  these  that  Anna  devoted  herself  to  the  ministry  of  an  evangelist.  If 
Luke  had  sought,  as  is  supposed,  occasions  for  ■practising  his  muse,  by  inventing 
personages  for  his  hymns,  and  hymns  for  his  personages,  how  came  he  to  omit  here 
to  put  a  song  into  the  mouth  of  Anna,  as  a  counterpart  to  Simeon's? 

3.  Historical  coiicliision  :  vers.  39,  40.*  It  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  Luke's 
narrative,  and  one  which  is  preserved  throughout,  that  he  exhibits  the  various  actors 

*  Yer.  39.  Some  Alex.,  Travra  instead  of  a-avm.  Others,  Kara  instead  of 
rn  Kara.  !*.  B.  Z.,  e-£arfn\jmv  instead  of  i^Tfarpfi/'o'^  Ver.  40.  J*.  B.  D.  L.  Iip''"'<i''«, 
Vg.  Or.,  omit  nvrv/Kirt,  after  tKfxiraiovm,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.,  with  14  ^Ijj., 
alt  the  Mun.  Syr.  It"'''T.     !*''.  B.  L.,  c!0(pia  instead  of  cn^ini. 


90  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

in  the  evange'kal  drama  as  observing  a  scrupulous  fidelity  to  lliu  law  (1 :  6,  2  :  22-24, 
23  :  56)  It  is  easy  also  to  uuderstarid  why  JMarcion,  the  opponent  of  the  law,  felt 
obliged  to  mutilate  this  writing  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  his  system.  But  what  is  less 
conceivable  is,  that  several  critics  should  find  in  such  a  Gospel  the  monument  of  a 
tendency  systematically  opposed  to  Jewish  Christianity.  The  fact  is,  that  in  it  the 
law  always  holiis  the  place  which  according  to  history  it  ought  to  occupy.  It  is  un- 
der its  safeguard  that  the  transition  from  the  old  covenant  to  the  new  is  gradually 
effected.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  ver.  ."U  has  a  religious  rather  than  a  chronolog- 
ical reference.  "  They  returned  lo  Nazareth  only  after  having  fulfilled  every  pre- 
scription of  the  law."  Ver.  40  contains  a  short  sketch  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus, 
answering  to  the  similar  sketch,  1  .  G6,  of  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  is  probably 
from  this  analogous  passage  that  the  gloss  TiVEVfiari,  in  spirit,  has  been  derived.  It  is 
wanting  in  the  principal  Alex,  and  Grseco-Latin  documents.  The  expression  Jle  greio 
refers  to  His  physical  development.  The  next  words,  lie  waxed  strong,  are  defined 
by  the  words  being  filled,  or  more  literally,  filling  Himself  with  wisdom ;  Ihey  refer  to 
His  spiritual,  iutcliectual,  and  religious  development.  The  wisdom  which  formed 
the  leading  feature  of  this  development  (in  John  the  Baptist  it  was  strength)  com- 
prises, on  the  one  hand,  the  knowledge  of  God  ;  on  the  other,  a  peuetialiug  under- 
standing of  men  and  tilings  from  a  divine  point  of  ■view.  The  image  [filling  Himself 
appeals  to  be  that  of  a  vessel,  which,  while  iucrensing  in  size,  fills  itself,  and,  by  fill- 
ing ilself,  enlarges  so  as  to  be  continually  holding  more.  It  is  plain  that  Luke  re- 
gards the  development,  and  consequently  tlie  humanity,  of  Jesus  as  a  reality.  Here 
we  havp  the  normal  growth  of  man  from  a  physical  and  moral  point  of  view.  It  was 
accomplished  for  the  first  time  on  our  earth.  God  therefore  regarded  this  child  with 
perfect  satisfaction,  because  His  creative  idea  was  realized  in  Him.  This  is  ex- 
pressed Ijy  the  last  clause  of  the  verse.  XilpL?,  the  ilivine  favor.  This  word  contrasts 
with  x^iP'  lJ^<i  hand,  1  :  06.  The  accus.  ctt'  avrd  marks  the  energy  with  which  the 
grace  of  God  rested  on  the  child,  penetrating  His  entire  being.  This  government 
contrasts  with  that  of  \  .QiQ,  ^.er'  avrov,  which  only  expresses  simple  co-operation. 
This  description  is  partly  taken  from  that  of  the  young  Samuel  (1  Sam.  2  :  26)  ;  only 
Luke  omits  here  the  idea  of  human  favor,  which  he  reserves  fur  ver.  52.  where  he 
describes  the  young  man.  Let  any  one  compare  this  description,  in  its  exquisite 
sobriety,  with  the  narratives  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus  in  the  apocryphal  writings,  and 
he  will  feel  how  authentic  the  tradition  must  have  been  from  which  such  a  narrative 
as  this  was  derived. 

SEVENTH  NAKRATIVE. — CHAP.  2  :  41-52.  \ 

llie  Child  Jesvs  at  Jerusalem. 

The  following  incident,  the  only  one  which  the  historian  relates  about  the  youtli  of 
Jesus,  is  an  instance  of  that  wisdom  which  marked  His  development.  Almost  all 
gieat  men  have  some  stcry  told  about  their  childliood,  in  whicli  their  future  destiny 
is  foreshadowed.  Here  we  have  the  first  glimpse  of  the  spiritual  greatness  Jesus  ex- 
hibited in  His  ministry.  Three  facts  :  1.  The  separation  (vers.  41-45)  ;  2.  The  re- 
union (vers.  46-50)  ;  8.  The  residence  at  Nazareth  (vers.  51,  52). 

1.  The  separation  :  vers.  41-45.*     The  idea  of  fidelity  to  the  law  is  prominent 

*  Yer.  41.  i^*,  e/jor  instead  of  stoS.     Yer.  42.  ii.  A.  B.  K.  L.  X.  IT.,  avai^aivovTuv 


CHAP.   II.  :  U-4G.  91 

also  in  tliis  narrative.  Accordinjj  to  Ex.  23  :  17,  Deut.  16  :  10,  men  ^vere  to 
present  thtMnselvcs  at  the  sanctuary  at  the  three  feasts  of  Passover,  Pentecost,  and 
TiibciiKicles.  There  was  uo  siicli  obligulion  for  women.  But  tlie  school  of  llillel 
rLHitilreil  Ihoni  to  make  at  least  liie  Passover  pilgrimage.  The  term  yoveii,  imrcntti,  is 
fuiuul  at  vcc.  41  iu  all  the  Mss.,  even  in  those  in  which  it  does  uoi  occur  at  vers.  27 
and  4:3.  which  proves  that  in  these  jjassnges  it  was  not  altered  with  any  dogmatic  de- 
sii;n.  Yer.  42.  It  was  at  the  age  of  twelve  that  the  young  Jew  began  to  be  re- 
spjusible  for  legal  observances,  and  to  receive  religious  instruclicn  ;  he  became  then 
n  son  of  the  law.  The  partic.  pres.  of  the  Alex,  reading,  avaliiuvovruv,  mubt  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  aor.  partic.  of  the  T.  R.,  avuiiuvTuv.  The  present  expresses  a  habit  ; 
the  ar.r.  is  a  correction  suggested  by  the  aor.  ])anic.  which  follows.  The  words  eif 
'If/jo7()'ii/ia  should  be  er-ascd,  accoiding  to  the  Ale.K.  reading,  ■which evidently  deserves 
the  preference.  It  is  a  gloss  easily  accounted  for.  The  words,  afler  the  cudomof 
the  feast,  perhaps  allude  to  the  custom  of  going  up  in  caravans.  Jesus  spent  these 
seven  days  of  the  feast  in  holy  delight.  Every  rite  spoke  a  divine  language  to  His 
pure  heart  ;  and  His  (juiek  uiulerstandiuggiadually  discovered  their  typical  nuaning. 
This  serves  to  explain  the  following  incident.  An  indication  of  wilful  and  deliberate 
disobedience  has  been  found  iu  the  term  vniueivEv,  He  abode.  Nothing  could  be  fur- 
ther from  the  historian's  intention  (ver.  51).  The  notion  of  perseverance  contained  in 
this  verb  alludes  simply  to  Jesus'  love  lor  the  temple,  and  all  that  took  place  there. 
It  was  owing  to  this  that,  on  the  day  for  leaving.  He  found  Himself  unintentionally 
separated  from  the  bund  of  children  to  which  He  belonged.  When  once  left  behind, 
where  was  He  to  go  in  this  strange  city?  The  h(>rne  of  a  child  is  the  house  of  his 
father.  Very  natuialiy,  therefore,  .lesos  sought  His  in  the  temple.  There  He  un- 
derwent an  experience  resembling  Jacob's  (Gen.  28).  In  His  solitude,  He  karned  to 
kmnv  God  more  familiarly  as  His  Falher.  Is  not  the  freshness  of  a  quite  recent  in- 
tuition perceptible  in  His  answer  (ver.  45))?  The  Alex,  reading  ol  yovsls  has  against 
il,  besides  the  Alex.  A.  and  C,  the  Italic  and  Peschito  tiauslaliuns.  It  was  only  Iu 
the  evening,  at  the  hour  of  encampment,  when  every  family  was  gathered  together 
for  the  night,  that  the  absence  of  the  child  was  perceived.  When  we  think  cf  the 
age  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  unusual  confidence  which  such  a  child  must  have  enjoj^ed, 
the  conduct  of  His  parents  in  this  affair  presents  nothing  unaccountable.  The  par- 
lie,  pres.  seekinrj  IThn  (ver.  45)  ap[)ears  to  indicate  that  they  searched  for  Him  on  the 
road  while  returning. 

2.  The  meeting  :  vers.  40-50.*  As  it  is  improbable  that  they  had  sought  for 
Jesus  for  two  or  three  daj's  without  going  to  the  temple,  the  three  days  must  certainly 
date  from  the  time  of  separation.  The  first  was  occupied  with  the  journey,  the 
s"cond  with  the  return,  and  the  third  with  the  meeting.  Lightfoot,  following  the 
Tilnuid,  mentions  three  synagogues  within  the  temple  inrl,>sure  :  one  at  the  gate 
of  the  court  of  the  Gentiles  ;  an  .ther  aL  tiie  entrance  of  the  court  of  the  Israelites  ;  a 
third  in  the  famous  peristyle  liiclichat  hagasith,  in  the  S.  E.  part  of  the  inner  couit.f 

insf^ad  of  avn(iavT(jv.  ^.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr"^''.  omit  ftf  Irporro^vaa.  Ver.  43. 
bi.  H.  D.  h.  some  Mnn,  read  f^i^uTav  m  -yni^eir  avrnv  instead  of  eyvtj  lurrf^  Km.  ij  /ipr7}f) 
nvTO}>.  Ver.  45.  it.  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit  avTov,  !S^  B.  C.  D.  L.,  am^tirovi -re^ 
instead  of  Ct/towte?.. 

'"  Ver.  48.  !!t*  B.  (i^mv/iev  instead  of  e^t/tovhev.  Ver.  49.  !!t*  b.  Syr*"",  t^rjrfrg  in. 
stead  of  e^r/TEiTt. 

\  Hot.  hebr  ad  Luc.  ii.  46  (after  Sanhedr.  xi.  2). 


92  COMMEXTAKY    ON'    ST.    IJ'KK. 

It  was  there  tliat  the  Rabbins  explaiued  the  hiw.     Desire  for  iustruction  led  Jesus 
thither.     The  following  narrative  in  uo  way  attributes  to  Him  the  part  of  a  doctor. 
In  order  to  find  suppoitfor  this  sense  in  opijosition  to  the  text,  some  critics  have 
alleged  the  detail  :    seated  in   the   midst   of  the   doctors.     The  disciples,  it  is  said, 
lisUned  around.     Tliis  opinion  has  been  refuted  by  Vitringa  ;  *  and  Paul's  expres- 
sion (Acts  22  :  ?>),  seated  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  would  be  sulBcient  to  prove  the  con- 
trary.    Nevertheless  the  expression,  seated  in  the   midst  of   the   doctors,  proves  n.) 
doubt  that  the  child  was  for  the  time  occupying  a  place  of  honor.     As  the  Rubbinical 
method  of  teaching  was  by  questions — by  proposing,  for  example,  a  problem  taken 
from  the  law— bolli  master   and   disciples   had   an   oppoituuity   of   showing   their 
sagacity.     Jesus  had  given  some  lemarkable  answer,  or  put  some  original  question  ; 
and,  as  is  the  case  when  a  particulaily  intelligent  pupil  presents  himself.  He  had  at- 
tracted for  the  moment  all  the  interest  of  His  teachers.     There  is  nothing  in  the  nar- 
rative, when  rightly  undei  stood,  that  savors  in  the  least  of  an  apotheosis  of  Jesus. 
Tlie  expressions,  hearing  them,  and  asking  them  ^'wesiwns,  bear  in  a  precisely  opposite 
direction.     Josephus,  in  his  autobiography  (c.  i.),  meatious  a  very  similar  fact  re- 
specting his  own  youth.     When  he  was  only  fourteen  years  of  age,  the  priests  and 
eminent  men  of  Jerusalem  came  to  question  him  on  the  explanation  of  the  law.     Tlio 
apocryphal  writings  m;d-:e  J.'sus  on  this  occasion  a  professor  possessing ornniscieni.e.f 
There  we  have  the  legend  grafted  on  the  fact  so  simply  related  by  the  evangelist. 
'Lvveaii,  understanding,  is  the    personal  quality  of    which   the   answers,  d-izoKpinni, 
are  the  manifestations.     The  surprise  of  His  parents  proves  that  Jesus  habitually 
observed  a  humble  leserve.     There  is  a  slight  tone  of  reproach  in  the  words  of  Mary. 
She  probably  wished  to  justify  herself  for  the  apparent  negligence  of  which  she  was 
guilty.     Criticism  is  surprised  at  the  uneasiness   expressed  by  Mary  ;  did  she  not 
know  who  this  child  was?    Criticism  reasons  as  if  the  human  heart  worked  accord- 
ino-  to  logic.     To  the  indirect  lepioach  of  Mary,  Jesus  replies  in  such  words  as  she 
had  never  heard  from  Him  befoie  :    Wherefore  did  ye  seek  me?     He  does  not  menn, 
"  You  could  very  well  leave  me  at  Jerusalem."     The  literal  translation  is,  "  Wliat 
is  it,  that  you  sought  me?"     And  the  im^jlied  answer  is,  "  To  seek  for  me  thus  was 
an  inadvertence  on  your  part.     It  should  have  occurred  to  you  at  once  that  you  would 
find  me  here."     The  sequel  explains  why.     The  phrase  t'l  on  is  found  in  Acts  5  :  9. 
OvK  7'/<5€ire,  did  ye  not  know  ?  not,  do  ye  not  know  ?    The  expression  rd  tov  TrnTpo^ 
//ov  may,  according  to  Gieek  usage,  have  either  a  local  meamng,  the  house  of ,  or  a 
moral,  the  affairs  of     The  former  sense  is  required  by  the  idea  of  seeking  ;    and  if, 
nevertheless.' we  are,  disposed  to  adopt  the  latter  as  wider,  the  first  must  be  included 
in  it.     "  Where  my  Father's  affairs  are  carried  on,   there  you  are  sure  to  find  ine." 
The  expression  my  Father  is  dictated  to  the  child  by  the  situation  :  a  child  is  t-)  bo 
found  at  his  father's.     We  may  add  that  He  could  not,   without  impropriety,  have 
said  God's,  instead  of  my  Father's;  for  this  would  have  been  to  exhil)it  in  a  preten- 
tious and  affected  way  the  entirely  religious  character  of  His  ordinary  thoughts,  and 

*  Svnag.  p.  167.  ,  ,  .    t  ^ 

f  In  the  Gospel  of  Thomns  (belonging  to  the fccnnd  century  ;  known  to  Jiena^u^), 
Jesus  when  on  the  road  to  Nazarethr returns  of  His  own  accord  to  .lerusrdem  ;  tlu! 
doctors  are  stupefied  with  wonder  at  hearing  Him  solve  the  m^st  difiicult  questions 
of  the  law  and  the  prophecies.  In  an  Arabic  Gospel  (of  later  date  than  llie  pruei- 
inu),  Jesus  instrurts  the  astronomers  in  the  mysteries  of  the  celtstial  spheres,  and 
reveals  to  the  pjiilosophers  the  secrets  of  metaphysics. 


CHAT.     II.    :  OU-.'iv'.  Wo 

to  put  Himself  forward  as  a  little  saiut.  Lastly,  does  not  this  expression  contain  a 
d«'licale  but  decisive  reply  to  Mary's  words,  T/iy  Father  and  If  Any  allusion  tu  the 
Trinitarian  relation  must,  of  course,  be  excluded  from  the  meaning  of  this  saying. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  can  the  simple  notion  of  moral  paternity  suflice  to  express 
its  meaning?  Had  not  Jesus,  during  those  days  of  isolation,  by  metiitating  anew 
upon  tiie  intimacy  of  His  moral  relations  with  God,  been  brouglit  to  reg;ird  Him  as 
the  sole  author  of  His  existence  ?  And  was  not  this  tlie  cause  of  the  kind  of  sliuddor 
which  He  fell  at  hearing  from  Mary's  lips  tlie  word  Thy  father,  to  which  He  ininic- 
diately  replies  with  a  certain  ardor  of  expression,  my  Father?  That  Mary  and  Joseph 
should  not  have  been  able  to  understand  this  speech  appears  inexplicable  to  cerlain 
critics — to  Meyer,  for  instance,  and  to  Strauss,  who  infeis  from  this  detail  that  the 
•whole  story  is  untrue.  But  this  word,  viy  Father,  was  the  first  revelation  of  a  re- 
lation which  surpassed  all  that  Judaism  had  realized  ;  and  the  expression,  "  to  be 
about  the  business"  of  this  Father,  expressed  the  ideal  of  a  completely  filial  life,  of 
an  existence  entirely  devoted  to  God  and  divine  things,  which  perhaps  at  this  very 
time  had  just  arisen  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  which  we  could  no  more  understand 
than  Mary  and  Joseph,  if  the  life  of  Jesus  had  never  come  before  us.  It  was  onl}'  Ijy 
the  liglit  Mary  received  afterward  from  the  ministry  of  her  Sou,  that  she  could  say 
what  is  liere  expi-esscd  :  that  she  did  not  understand  tliis  saying  at  the  time.  Does 
not  the  original  source  of  this  narrative  discover  itself  in  this  remark  ?  From  whom 
else  could  it  emanate,  but  from  Mary  herself '? 

8.  The  residence  at  Nazareth  :  vers.  51,  52.*  From  this  moment  Jesus  possesses 
within  Him  this  idtal  of  a  life  entirely  devoted  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  had 
just  flashed  before  His  eyes.  For  eighteen  years  He  a[>plied  Himself  in  silence  to  the 
business  of  His  earthly  father  at  Nazareth,  where  He  is  called  the  carpenter  (Mark 
G  :  3).  Tlie  auah'tical  form  r/v  vrroraaaSuevdi  indicates  the  permanence  of  this  sul)- 
mission  ;  and  the  pres.  partic.  mid.,  submitting  Himself,  ils  spontaneous  and  deli!)- 
erate  character.  In  this  simple  word,  submitting  Himself,  Luke  has  summed  up  the 
entire  woik  of  Jesus  until  His  baptism.  But  why  did  not  God  permit  the  child  to 
remain  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  which  duriug  the  feast-days  had  been  His  Eden  ? 
The  answer  is  not  dilTlcult.  He  must  inevitably  have  been  thrown  too  early  into  the 
theologico-polilical  discussions  which  agitated  the  capital  ;  and  after  having  excited 
the  admiiation  of  the  doctors,  He  would  have  provoked  their  hatred  by  His  original 
and  independent  turn  of  thought.  If  the  spiritual  atmosphere  of  Nazareth  was  heavy, 
it  was  at  least  calm  ;  and  the  labors  of  the  workshop,  in  the  retirement  of  this  peaceful 
valle}',  under  the  eye  of  the  father,  was  a  more  favorable  sphere  for  the  development 
of  Jesus  than  the  ritualism  of  the  temple  and  the  Rabbinical  discussions  of  Jerusalem. 
The  remark  at  the  end  of  ver.  51  is  simihir  to  that  at  ver.  19  ;  only  for  the  verb  uvrr;;- 
pelv,  which  denoted  the  grnupiug  of  a  great  number  of  circurnslances.  to  collect  and 
''combine  tiiem,  Luke  substitutes  here  another  compound  (^laTJuielv.  This  6in  denotes 
the  permanence  of  the  rc(;o]]ection,  notwithstanding  circumstances  which  might 
have  eUaccd  it,  particularl}'  the  inability  to  understand  recorded  in  ver.  50.  She 
carefully  kept  in  In  r  possession  this  profound  sa3'ing  as  an  unexplained  mystery.  The 
fiftj'-second  verse  describes  the  youth  of  Jesus,  as  the  fortielli  verse  had  depicted  Ilis 
childhood  ;  and  these  two  brief  sketches  correspond  with  the  two  analogous  pictures 

*  V'T.  51.  The  Mss.  and  Vss.  are  divided  between  ko/.  rj  juv'VP  and  v  (h  fii]T7]r>.  !** 
B.  D.  ]\r.  omit  Tdvra.  Ver.  52.  it.  L.  add  ev  r;/,  B.  ev,  before  cc^ia.  ]).  L.  Syr. 
lip'"'i""  place  v'i'ii-O'  befcre  cndia. 


O-t  COMNrcXTATlY    ON    ST.    LlKf:. 

of  John  the  Baptist  (1  :  G6,  80).  Each  of  these  geneial  remarks,  if  it  slot  d  ;.!<  ne 
might  bo  regarded,  as  Schleiermacher  has  suggested,  as  the  clote  of  a  Mimll  docu- 
ment. But  their  relation  to  each  other,  and  their  periodical  lecurrence,  deiuonstiate 
llie  unity  of  our  writing.  This  form  is  met  with  again  in  the  book  of  the  Acts. 
'HXinia  docs  not  lieie  denote  age,  which  would  yield  no  meaning  at  all,  Mut  htight, 
atature,  just  as  19  -.3.  This  term  embraces  the  entire  physical  development,  all  the 
external  advantages  ;  ao^ia,  wisdom,  refers  to  the  iutellcclual  and  moral  developuieul. 
The  third  \.qmi\,  favor  with  God  and  men,  completes  the  other  two.  Over  tlie  person 
of  this  young  man  there  was  spread  a  chaim  at  once  external  and  spiritual  ;  it  pro- 
ceeded from  the  favor  of  God,  and  conciliated  toward  Ilim  the  favor  of  men.  This 
perfectly  normal  human  being  was  the  beginning  of  a  reconciliation  between  heaven 
and  earth.  The  term  wisdom  refers  rather  to  with  God  ;  the  word  stature  to  witli 
men.  The  last  words,  icith  men,  establish  a  contrast  between  Jesus  and  John  the 
Baptist,  who  at  this  very  time  was  growing  up  in  the  solitude  of  the  desert  ;  and  this 
contrast  is  the  prelude  to  that  which  later  on  was  to  be  exhibited  in  their  respective 
ministries.  There  is  no  notion  for  the  forgetfulness  or  denial  of  which  theology  pays 
more  dearly  than  that  of  a  development  in  pure  goodness.  This  positive  nation  is  de- 
rived by  biblical  Christianity  from  this  verse.  With  it  the  humanity  of  Jesus  may 
be  accepted,  as  it  is  here  presented  by  Luke,  in  all  its  reality. 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS  ON   CHAPS.    1   AND   2. 

It  remains  for  us  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  historical  value  of  the  accounts  con- 
tained in  these  two  chapters. 

I.  Characteristics  of  the  Narrative. — We  have  already  observed  that  Luke 
thoroughly  believes  that  he  is  relating  facts,  and  not  giving  poetical  illustrations  of 
ideas.  He  declares  that  he  only  wiitesiu  accordance  with  ihe  information  he  has 
collected  ;  he  writes  with  the  design  of  convincing  his  readers  of  the  unquestionable 
certainty  of  the  things  which  he  relates  (1  :  3,  4)  ;  and  in  speaking  thus,  he  has  very 
specially  in  vit.'W  the  contents  of  the  first  two  chapters  (coinp.  the  avuOev,  ver.  3).  In 
short,  the  very  nature  of  these  narratives  admits  of  no  other  supposition  (p.  42). 
Was  he  liimself  the  dupe  of  false  information?  Was  he  not  in  a  much  more  favor- 
able position  than  we  are  for  estimating  the  value  of  the  communications  that  wei-e 
made  to  him  ?  There  are  not  two  ways,  we  imagine,  of  replying  to  these  preliminary 
questions.  As  to  the  substance  of  the  narrative,  we  may  distinguish  between  the 
facts  and  the  discourses  or  songs.  The  supernatural  element  in  the  fcicts  only  occurs 
to  an  extent  that  may  be  called  natural,  when  once  the  supernatural  character  of  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  is  admitted  in  a  general  way.  If  Mary  was  to  accept  spontane- 
ously the  part  to  which  she  was  called,  it  was  necessary  that  she  should  be  inroinu-d 
of  it  befonihaud.  If  angels  really  exist,  and  form  a  part  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  they 
were  interested  as  well  as  men  in  the  birth  of  Ilim  who  was  to  be  the  Head  cf  this 
orgimizatiou,  and  reign  over  the  whole  moral  universe.  It  is  not  surprising,  then, 
that  some  manifestation  on  their  part  should  accompany  this  event.  That  the  pro- 
phetic Spirit  might  have  at  this  epoch  representatives  in  Israel,  can  only  be  disputed 
by  denying  the  existence  and  action  of  this  Spirit  in  the  nation  at  any  time.  Ftom 
the  point  of  view  presented  by  the  biblical  premisses,  the  possibility  of  the  facts  re- 
lated is  tlien  indisputable.     In  the  details  of  the  history,  the  supernatural  is  confined 


(il.NKUAL    ('()NSlIii:!{.\'n()NS    OV    CHAI'S.    I.     ANI»    II.  Do 

•within  the  limits  of  the  strictest  subiiely  aii.l  most  perfect  suitability,  ami  differs 
altoiicther  iu  this  respect  fiom  the  marvels  of  the  apocryphal  wiiliii^'s.* 

The  discourses  or  hymns  may  appear  to  have  been  a  freer  element,  in  the  trcat- 
nienl  of  which  the  imayiualion  of  the  author  might  have  allowed  itself  larger  scope. 
Should  not  thuse  portions  be  regarded  as  souiewhal  analogous  to  those  discourses 
wliicli  the  ancient  iiistoiiaus  so  often  put  into  the  moulh  of  their  heroes,  a  product  of 
the  individual  or  collective  Christian  inu^e  ?  But  we  have  proved  that,  in  allributing 
1;)  the  angel,  to  jLuy,  and  to  Zachaiias  the  language  which  he  puts  into  their 
moulhs,  the  author  would  of  his  own  accoid  have  made  his  characteis  false 
prophets.  They  would  be  so  many  omicIls  post  evcntum  contra  cccutuni, !  Isever, 
afier  the  unbelief  of  the  people  had  brought  about  a  sepaialion  between  the  Syna- 
gogue and  the  Church,  could  the  Chri>tiau  muso  have  celebrated  the  glories  of  the 
Messianic  future  of  Israel,  with  such  accents  of  artlessjoyoushopeas  prevail  in  these 
canticles  (1  :  17,  54,  55,  74,  and  75  ;  2:1,  32).  The  only  woids  that  could  be  sus- 
pected from  this  point  of  view  are  those  which  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  Suneou. 
For  the}'  suppose  a  more  distinct  view  of  the  future  course  of  things  iu  Israel.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  precisely  the  hymn  of  Simeon,  and  his  address  to  Mary, 
which,  I)}'  their  originality,  conciseness,  and  energy,  are  most  cleaily  maiked  with 
the  stamp  of  authenticity.  We  have  certainly  met  with  some  expressions  of  a  unl- 
veisalist  tendency  in  these  songs  ("  goodwill  toward  men,"  2  :  14  ;  "a  light  of  the 
Gentiles,"  ver.  32)  ;  but  these  allusions  iu  no  way  exceed  the  limits  of  ancient 
l)rophccy,  and  tliey  are  not  brought  out  in  a  suflicienll^'  maiked  way  to  indicate  a 
time  when  Jewish  Christianity  and  Paulinism  were  already  iu  open  conflict.  This 
universalism  is,  iu  fact,  that  of  the  early  daj's,  simple,  free,  and  exempt  from  all 
polemical  design.     It  is  the  fresh  and  normal  unfolding  of  the  flower  in  its  calyx. 

The  opinion  in  closest  conformity  with  the  internal  marks  of  the  narrative,  as  well 
as  with  the  clearly  expressed  intention  of  the  writer,  is  therefore  certainly  that  which 
regards  the  facts  and  discourses  contained  in  these  two  chapters  as  historical. 

II.  Eelatioa  of  the  Xarratices  of  Chaps.  1  and  2  toihe  Contents  of  other  parts  of  the 
JV.  r.— The  lirst  point  of  comparison  is  the  narrative  of  the  infancy  in  Matthew, 
chaps.  1  and  2.  It  is  confidently  asserted  that  the  two  accounts  are  irreconcilable. 
We  ask,  first  of  all,  whether  there  are  two  accounts.  Does  what  is  called  the  narra- 
tive of  Matthew  really  deserve  this  name  ?  We  find  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Mat- 
thew five  incidents  of  the  infancy  of  Christ,  which  are  mentioned  solely  to  connect 
with  them  five  prophetic  passages,  and  thus  prove  the  Messianic  dignity  of  .Tesus,  in 
accordance  with  the  design  of  this  evangelist.  1:1:  Jesus,  the  Christ.  Is  this  what 
we  should  call  a  narrative  ?    Is  it  not  rather  a  didactic  exposition  ?    So  little  does  the 

*  In  addition  to  the  specimens  already  sriven,  we  add  the  followinir.  taken  from 
the  Gospel  of  James  (2d  c.)  :  Zacharias  is  high  priest  ;  he  inquires  of  God  respecting 
the  lot  of  the  youthful  M;iry,  brought  up  in  the  temple.  God  Himself  commands 
that  she  shall  be  confided  to  .Joseph.  The  task  of  embroideriutr  the  veil  of  the  tetii- 
ple  IS  devolved  npr-n  Mary  liv  1  it.  When  she  brinirsthe  work."  Elizabeth  at  the  si-jht 
of  her  plain's  the  molherof  iIih  Messiah,  without  :\Iarv  herself  knowinir  whv.  After- 
ward it  is  Jolin,  more  even  Ihan  .lesu*.  who  is  the  obji-cl  of  Herod's  iralulis  scavcli. 
Elizabeth  fiefs  to  the  desert  wilh  her  diild  ;  a  rock  opens  to  receive  litem  ;  a  brii^ht 
light  reveals  Hie  presence  of  the  angel  who  gunrde  them.  Herod  rinestions  ZMcharias. 
who  is  ignorant  him«e]f  where  liisVhiM  i«.'  Zacharias  is  then  slain  in  the  temple 
court  ;  the  carpets  of  the  temple  cry  oul  ;  a  voice  announces  the  avenger  ;  the  body 
of  the  martyr  disappears  ;  only  his  blood  is  found  chanLrcd  into  btoue. 


90  CUMMEXTAllY    0^^    ST.  LUKE. 

author  entertain  the  idea  of  relating,  that  in  chap.  1.  while  treating  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  he  does  not  even  mention  Bethlehem  :  he  is  wholly  taken  up  with  the  connec- 
tion of  the  fiict  of  which  he  is  speaking  with  the  oracle.  Isa.  7.  Il  is  only  after  hav- 
ing finished  this  subject,  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  visit  of  the  magi,  that  he 
mentions  for  the  first  time,  and  as  it  were  in  passing  (Jesus  being  bom  in  Bethlehem) 
this  locality.  And  with  what  object  ?  With  a  historical  view  ?  Not  at  all.  Simply 
on  account  of  the  prophecy  of  Micah,  which  is  lu  be  illustrated  in  the  visit  of  the 
miigi,  and  in  which  the  place  of  the  Messiah's  birth  was  announced  betoieliand. 
Apait  from  this  piophecy,  he  would  still  less  have  thought  of  mentioning  Bethlehem 
in  the  second  narrative  than  in  the  first.  And  it  is  tnis  desultory  history,  made  up  of 
isolated  facts,  referred  to  solely  with  an  apologetic  aim,  that  is  to  be  employed  to 
criticise  and  correct  a  complete  i:arrative  such  as  Luke's  !  Is  it  not  clear  that,  be- 
tween two  accounts  of  such  a  different  nature,  theie  may  easily  be  found  blanks 
which  hypothesis  alone  can  fill  up  ?  Two  incidents  are  common  to  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew :  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem,  and  His  education  at  Nazareth.  The  histori- 
cal truth  of  the  latter  piece  of  information  is  not  disputed.  Instead  of  this,  it  is 
maintained  that  the  former  is  a  mere  legendary  invention  occasioned  by  Mic.  5.  But 
were  il  so.  the  fact  would  never  occur  in  the  tradition  entirely  detached  from  the 
prophetic  woid  which  would  be  the  very  soul  of  it.  But  Luke  does  not  contain  the 
slightest  allusion  to  the  prophecy  of  Micah.  It  is  only  natural,  therefore,  to  admit 
that  the  first  fact  is  historical  as  well  as  the  other.  With  this  common  basis,  three 
differences  aie  discernible  in  which  some  find  contradictions. 

First.  The  account  which  Matthew  gives  of  the  appearance  of  an  angel  to  Joseph, 
in  order  to  relieve  his  peiplexily,  is,  it  is  Faid.  incompatible  with  that  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  angel  to  Mary  in  Luke.  For  if  this  last  appearance  had  taken  place  Mary 
could  not  have  failed  to  have  spoken  of  it  to  Joseph,  and  in  that  case  his  doubts 
would  have  been  impossible.  But  all  this  is  uncertain.  For,  fiist,  Mary  maj^  cer- 
tainly have  told  Joseph  everything,  either  before  or  after  her  return  from  Elizabeth  ; 
but  in  this  case,  whatever  confidence  Joseph  had  in  her,  nothing  could  prevent  his 
being  for  a  moment  shaken  by  doubt  at  hearing  of  a  message  and  a  fact  so  extraordi- 
nary. But  it  is  possible  also— and  this  supposition  appears  to  me  more  probable— 
that  Mary,  judging  it  right  in  this  affair  to  leave  everything  to  God,  who  immediately 
directed  it,  held  herself  as  dead  in  regard  to  Joseph.  And,  in  this  case,  what  might  not 
have  been  his  anxiety  when  he  thought  he  saw  Mary's  condition?  On  either  of  these 
two  possible  suppositions,  a  reason  is  found  for  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to  Joseph. 
Seco?id.  It  would  seem,  according  to  Matthew,  that  at  the  time  Jesus  was  born, 
Ilis  parents  were  residing  at  Bethlehem,  and  that  this  city  was  their  peimanent 
abode.  Further,  on  their  return  from  Egypt,  when  they  resolved  to  go  and  live  at 
Nazareth,  their  decision  was  the  result  of  a  divine  interposition  which  aimed  at  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  (Matt.  2  :  23,  23).  In  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  the  ordinary 
abode  of  the  parents  appears  to  be  Nazareth.  It  is  an  exceptional  circumstance,  the 
edict  of  Augustas,  that  takes  them  to  Bethlehem.  And  consequently,  as  soon  as  the 
duties,  which  have  called  them  to  Judsea  and  detained  them  there,  are  accomplished, 
they  return  to  Nazareth,  without  needing  any  special  direction  (2  :  39).  It  is  imi)()r- 
tant  here  to  remember  the  remark  which  we  made  on  the  nature  of  Matthew's  naiia- 
tive.  In  that  evangelist,  neither  the  mention  of  the  place  of  birth  nor  of  the  place 
■where  Jesus  was  brought  up  is  made  as  a  matter  of  history  ;  in  both  cases  it  is  solely 
a  question  of  proving  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy.     An  account  of  this  kind  with- 


(;i;m;kal  considkuations  on  ciiArs.  i.   ani»  rr.  DT 

out  doubt  affirms  wliat  it  actually  says,  but  it  iti  no  way  denies  what  it  does  not  say  ; 
and  il  is  impossible  to  derive  from  it  a  liistorical  view  sufficieully  complete,  to 
oi)p')se  it  to  another  ami  mure  detailed  accjunt  liiat  is  decMdecily  historical.  There  is 
nothiiiir,  therefore,  lierc  to  prevent  our  eomp!etin<r  the  informatiju  furnished  by  Mal- 
tliew  from  that  supplied  by  Luke,  and  lepirduiir  Nazareth  witli  tiie  latter  as  the  nat 
ura".  ab  ulo  of  the  j.areuts  of  Jesus.  What  follows  will  coniplelo  the  solution  of  this 
dillicu'.ty. 

Third.  The  incidents  of  the  visit  of  the  magi  and  the  iliL^ht  into  E^:2;ypt.  related  by 
Matthew,  cannot  be  mtercalated  with  Luke's  narrative,  eillver  before  tiie  presenlatioa 
of  (he  child  in  the  temple — His  jjarents  would  not  have  been  so  imprudent  as  to  take 
Him  back  to  Jerusalem  after  that  the  visit  of  the  magi  had  drawn  upon  Him  the  jeal- 
ous notice  of  Herod  ;  and  besides,  there  would  not  be,  duiiug  the  six  weeks  interven- 
ing between  the  birth  and  the  presentation,  the  time  necessuiy  for  the  journey  to 
Egypt — or  after  this  ceremony  ;  for,  according  to  Luke  2  .  39.  the  i)arenl.s  return  di- 
rectly from  Jerusalem  to  Nazareth,  without  going  again  to  Bethlehem,  where  never- 
the'.ess  the^'  must  have  received  the  visit  of  the  magi  ;  and  according  to  Matthew  him- 
self, Joseph,  after  the  return  from  Egypt,  docs  not  return  t.>  Judica,  but  goes  inune- 
diateiV  to  selt.e  in  Galilee.  But  notwitlistanding  theie  reasons,  it  is  not  impossib.e  lo 
p'ace  tlie  presentation  at  Jerusalem,  either  after  or  before  the  visit  of  the  magi.  If 
this  had  already  taken  p.ace.  Joseph  and  Mary  must  have  put  their  trust  in  Gods 
care  to  protect  the  child  ;  and  the  time  is  no  objection  to  this  supposition,  as  Wieseler 
has  shown.  For  from  Bethlehem  to  lihinocolure.  the  fiist  Egyi)tian  town,  is  only 
three  or  four  days'  journey.  Three  weeks,  then,  would,  strictly  speaking,  suffice  to 
go  and  return.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  lo  place  the  visit  of  the  magi  and  the 
journey  into  Egypt  after  the  presentation.  "We  have  only  to  suppose  that  after  this 
ceremony  3laiy  and  Joseph 'returned  to  Bethlehem,  a  circumstance  of  which  Luke 
Was  not  aware,  and  which  he  has  omitted.  In  the  same  way,  in  the  Acts,  he  omits 
Paul's  journey  into  Arabia  after  his  conversion,  and  combines  into  one  the  two  so 
jourus  at  Damascus  separated  by  this  journey.  This  return  to  Bethlehem,  .situated  at 
such  a  short  distance  from  Jerusalem,  is  too  natural  to  need  to  be  particularly 
accounted  for.  But  it  is  (completely  accounted  for,  if  we  suppose  that,  when  Josej)ii 
and  JIary  left  Nazareth  on  account  of  the  census,  they  did  so  with  the  intention  of 
settling  at  Bethlehem.  IMany  reasons  would  induce  them  to  this  decision.  It  might 
appear  to  them  more  suitable  that  the  child  on  whom  such  high  promises  rested  should 
be  brought  up  at  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  His  royal  ancestor,  in  the  neigliboihood  of 
the  capital,  than  in  tlie  remote  hamlet  of  Nazareth.  The  desire  of  being  near  Zacha- 
rias  and  Elizabeth  wou'.d  h'.so  attract  them  to  Judaja.  Lastly,  they  would  thereby 
avoid  the  cahinmious  judgments  which  the  short  time  that  elapsed  between  their  mar- 
riage and  the  birth  of  the  child  could  not  have  failed  to  occasion  had  they  dw(  It  at 
Nazireth.  Besides,  even  though  tliis  hud  not  been  their  original  plan,  after  Josej)h 
had  i)een  settled  at  Bethlehem  for  some  weeks,  and  had  found  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence there,  nothing  would  more  naturally  occur  to  his  mind  than  the  idea  of  settling 
down  at  the  place.  In  this  way  the  interposition  of  the  angel  is  explained,  who  in 
Matthew  induces  him  to  return  to  Galilee.  Bleek  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the 
arrival  of  the  magi  preceded  the  presentation,  and  that  the  journey  into  Egypt  fl- 
owed it.  This  supposition  is  adnii.'-sil)le  also  ;  it  alters  nothing  of  importance  in  the 
course  of  things  as  presented  in  the  preceding  explanations,  of  which  we  give  a 
sketch  in  the  following  recapitulation  : 


08  '  CO.AIMEXTAUV    OX    ST.    LUKE, 

1.  The  imffcl  announces  to  Mtiry  the  birth  of  Jesus  (Luke  1).  2.  Mary,  after  or 
"without  havini^  sptjken  to  Joseph,  goes  to  EMzabelh  (Luke  1).  3.  After  her  lelurn, 
Joseph  falls  into  the  state  of  perplexily  frc  m  which  lie  is  delivered  by  the  message  (if 
the  angel  (Malt.  1).  4.  He  lakes  Mary  ostensibly  for  his  wife  (Matt.  1).  5.  ITerod  s 
order,  carrying  out  the  decree  of  Augustus,  leuds  them  to  Bethlehem  (Luke  2).  G, 
Jes'as  is  bora  (Malt.  1  :  Luke  2)  7.  His  parents  present  Him  in  the  temple  (Luke  2). 
8,  On  their  return  to  Bethlehem,  they  receive  the  visit  of  the  magi  and  escape  into 
Egypt  (Matt,  2)  9  Returned  from  Egypt,  they  give  up  the  idea  of  settling  at  Beth- 
lehem, and  determine  once  move  to  fi.\  their  abode  at  Naza-etli. 

Only  one  condition  is  requu'cd  in  (;rder  to  accept  this  etl'ort  to  harmonize  Ihe  two 
accounts — naaiely,  the  supposition  thai  each  writer  was  ignorant  of  the  other's  nar- 
rative But  this  suppcsiticn  is  a-.owtd  by  even  Ihe  most  decided  adversaiies  of  anj"- 
attempt  at  harmony — such,  for  instance,  as  Keim,  who,  although  he  believes  that 
Luke  in  composing  his  Gospel  made  use  of  Matthew,  is  nevertheless  of  opinion  that 
ilietiist  two  chapters  of  Matthew's  writing  were  not  in  existence  at  Ihe  time  when 
xjuke  availed  himself  of  it  for  the  composition  of  his  own. 

If  the  solution  proposed  doer?  not  satisfy  the  leader,  and  he  thinks  he  must  choose 
between  the  two  writings,  it  will  certainly  be  more  natuial  to  suspect  the  nariative 
of  Illatthew,  because  it  has  no  proper  historical  aim.  But  further,  it  will  only  lie 
light,  in  estimating  the  value  of  the  facts  related  by  this  evangelist,  to  remember  that 
the  more  forced  in  some  cases  appears  the  connection  which  he  maintains  between  the 
facts  he  mentions  and  the  propuecies  he  applies  to  them,  the  less  probable  is  it  that 
llie  former  were  invented  on  the  foundation  of  the  latter.  Such  incidents  as  the 
journey  into  Egypt  and  the  massacre  of  the  children  must  have  been  well-ascer- 
tained facts  before  any  one  would  think  of  tiuding  a  prophetic  announcement  of 
Ihem  in  the  words  of  Hosea  and  Jeremiah,  which  the  author  quotes  and  applies  to 
them 

We  pass  on  to  other  parts  of  the  N.  T.  Meyer  maintains  that  certain  facts  sub- 
sequently related  by  the  synoptics  themselves  are  incompatible  with  the  reality  of  the 
miraculous  events  of  the  mfancy  How  could  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  acquainted 
"with  these  prodigies,  refuse  to  believe  in  their  brother  ?  How  could  even 
Mary  herse.f  share  their  unbelief  ?  (Mark  3  ;  21,  81  ei  seq.  ;  Matt.  12  :  46  et  srg.  ; 
Luke  8  19  ct  scq.  ,  comp.  John  7  ;  5.)  In  reply,  it  may  be  said  that  we  do  not  know 
how  far  Mary  could  communicate  to  her  sons,  at  any  rate  befoie  the  time  of  Jesus' 
ministry,  these  extraordinary  circumstances,  which  touched  on  very  delicate  matters 
affecting  herse.f.  Besides,  jealousy  and  prejudice  m'ght  easily  counteract  any  im- 
pression produced  by  facts  of  which  they  had  not  been  witnesses,  and  induce  them 
to  think,  notwithstanding,  that  Jesus  was  taking  a  wrong  course.  Did  not  John  the 
Baptist  himself,  although  he  had  given  public  testimony  to  Jesus,  as  no  one  would 
venture  to  deny,  feel  his  faith  shaken  in  view  of  the  unexpected  course  which  His 
work  took  ?  and  did  not  this  cause  him  to  be  offended  in  Him  ?  (Matt.  11  :  6.)  As 
to  Mary,  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  she  shared  the  unbeliet  of  her  sous.  If  she 
accompanies  them  when  they  go  to  Jesus,  intending  to  lay  hold  upon  Him  (Mark  o), 
it  is  probably  from  a  feeling  of  anxiety  as  to  what  might  lake  place,  and  from  a  de- 
sire to  prevent  the  conflict  she  anticipates.  Keim  alleges  the  omission  of  the  naira- 
tives  of  the  infan-y  in  Slark  and  John.  These  two  evangelists,  it  is  true,  make  tiiu 
Etarting-point  of  Iheir  nariative  on  this  side  of  these  facts.  Mark  opens  his  with  tlic 
ministry  of  the  foreiunner,  which  he  regards  as  the  true  commencement  of  that  of 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS    ON    (HATS.    I.     AND    II.  1)9 

Jesus.*  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  he  denies  all  (lie])reviouscircuinst:inces 
■which  lie  does  not  relate.  All  that  this  lU'oves  is,  Uiat  the  oriiiiiial  ai)ostnIic  preacliiog, 
of  which  this  Gospel  is  the  simplest  reproduction,  went  no  furtiier  back  ;  and  fortius 
/nunifest  reason,  that  this  preiiehiug  was  based  on  the  tradition  ot  the  aposlles  as  eye- 
witnesses (avToirrai,  1:2;  Acts  1  :  21,  22  ;  John  15  :  27),  and  that  the  personal  testi- 
mony of  tlie  apostles  did  not  go  back  as  far  us  the  early  period  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
It  is  doubtless  for  the  same  reason  that  Paul,  in  his  enumeration  of  the  leslimouies  lo 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  omits  that  of  the  women,  because  lie  regards  the  testimony 
of  the  apostles  and  of  thi3  Church  gathered  about  them  us  the  only  suitable  basis  fur 
(he  ollicial  instruction  of  the  Church.  John  commences  his  narrative  at  the  hour  of 
(he  birth  of  his  own  faith,  which  simply  proves  that  the  design  of  his  work  is  to  trace 
the  history  of  the  development  of  his  own  faith  and  of  that  of  his  fellow-dit^cipies. 
All  that  occurred  pret-ious  to  this  time— tlie  baptism  of  Jesus,  the  temptation— he 
leaves  untold  ;  but  he  does  not  on  that  accoviut  deny  these  facts,  for  he  himself 
alludes  to  (he  baptism  of  Jesus. 

Keim  goes  further,  lie  maintains  that  there  are  to  be  found  in  the  N.  T.  three 
theones  as  to  the  origin  of  the  peison  of  Chiist,  which  are  exclusive  of  each  other  : 
First.  That  of  the  purely  natural  birth  ;  this  Avould  be  the  true  view  of  the  apus'les 
tmd  piimilive  Cliuich.  which  was  held  by  the  Ebionitisli  communilies  (Cltnient, 
Ilomil.).  This  being  found  insufficient  to  explain  such  a  remaikable  se(inci  as  the 
life  of  Jesus,  it  must  have  been  supplemented  afterward  by  the  legend  of  the  descent 
of  the  Hjly  Spirit  at  the  baptism.  JScond.  That  of  the  miraculous  birth,  held  by 
part  of  the  Jewish-Christian  communities  and  the  Kazarene  churches,  and  proceeding 
from  an  erroneous  Messianic  application  of  Isa.  7.  This  theory  is  found  in  Die  Gos- 
pel of  Luke  and  in  jMatl.  1  and  2.  Third.  The  theory  of  the  pre  existence  of  Jesus 
as  a  divine  being,  originated  in  the  Greek  churches,  of  which  Paul  and  John  are  the 
principal  representatives.     To  this  we  reply  : 

Firs'.  Tlial  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  apostolic  and  primitive  doctrine  was  that 
of  the  natural  birth.  Certain  words  are  cited  in  proof  which  are  put  by  the  evange- 
lists in  the  mouth  of  the  people  :  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  sou  V"  (Matt.  13  ;  5o  : 
Luke  4  :  22  ;  comp.  John  6  ;  42)  ;  next  the  words  uf  the  Apostle  Philip  in  John  •  "  We 
have  found  .  .  .  Jesus  of  Kazarelh,  the  son  of  Josepli"  (John  1  ;  45).  T'.ie 
absence  of  all  piotest  on  the  part  of  John  against  this  assertion  of  Philip's  is  regarded 
as  a  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  he  himself  admitted  its  truth.  But  who  could  with 
any  reason  be  surprised  that,  on  the  day  after  Jesus  made  the  acquaintance  of  His 
first  disciples.  Philip  should  still  be  ignorant  of  the  miraculous  birth  ?  Was  Jesns  to 
hasten  to  (ell  this  fact  to  those  who  saw  Him  for  the  first  time  ?  Was  there  nothing 
more  urgent  to  teach  these  young  hearts  just  opening  lo  His  influence  ?  Who  cannot 
understand  wln-^  Jesus  should  allow  the  words  of  the  people  to  pass,  without  an- 
nouncing such  a  fact  as  this  to  these  cavilling,  mocking  Jews  ?  Jesus  testifies  before 
all  what  He  has  seen  with  His  Father  by  the  inward  sense,  and  not  outward  facts 
which  He  had  from  the  fallible  lips  of  others.  Above  all.  He  very  well  knew  that 
it  was  not  faith  in  His  miraculous  iiirth  that  would  produce  faith  in  His  person  ;  on 
the  contrary,  that  it  was  only  faith  in  His  person  that  would  induce  any  one  to  admit 
the  miracle  of  His  birth.     He  saw  that,  to  i)tit  out  before  a  hostile  and  profane  people 

*  These  words,  T/ic  ber/inninr/  of  i/ie  Gospel  of  JeKus  Ckrisf,  the  Son  of  Qod  (Mark 
1  :  1).  appear  \n  me  to  be  in  logical  apposition  with  the  subsequent  account  of  the 
miiii>-lr}  of  John  (■'>  .  4).  " 


100  COMMENTAKY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

an  assertion  like  lliis,  wliicli  He  could  not  possibly  prove,  would  only  draw  forth  a 
flood  of  coarse  ridicule,  which  would  fall  directly  on  tliat  revered  person  who  was 
more  concerned  in  this  history  even  than  Himself,  and  that  without  the  least  advan- 
tage to  the  faith  of  any  one.  Certainly  this  was  a  case  for  the  application  of  the  pre- 
cept, Cast  not  your  ptarlii  before  swine,  if  you  would  not  have  them  i^r/'/i  again  and 
rend  you.  Tliis  observation  also  explains  the  sileuce  of  the  apostles  on  this  point  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  They  could  not  have  done  anything  more  ill-advised  thiui 
to  rest  the  controversy  between  the  Jews  and  Christ  on  such  a  ground.  If  John  does 
not  rectify  (he  statements  of  the  people  and  of  Philip,  the  reason  is,  that  he  wrote 
for  the  Church  already  formed  and  sufficiently  instructed.  His  personal  conviction 
appears  from  the  following  facts  :  He  admitted  the  human  birth,  for  he  speaks  several 
times  of  His  mother.  At  the  same  time  he  regarded  natural  birth  as  the  means  of 
the  transmission  of  sin:  "That  wliicli  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  And  never- 
theless he  regarded  this  Jesus,  born  of  a  human  mother,  as  the  Holy  One  of  Ood,  and 
the  bi-ead  that  came  doicn  from  lieaven  !  Is  it  possible  that  he  did  not  attribute  an  ex- 
ceptional character  to  His  birth  ?  As  to  Mark,  we  do  not,  with  Bleek,  rely  upon  the 
name  Son  of  Mary,  which  is  given  to  .Jesus  by  the  people  of  Nazareth  (G  :  3)  ;  this 
appellation  in  their  mouth  does  nut  imply  a  belief  in  the  miraculous  birth.  But  in 
the  expression,  .Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (1  :  1),  the  latter  title  certain  implies 
more,  in  the  author's  mind,  than  the  simple  notion  of  Messiah  ;  this,  in  fact,  was 
already  sufficiently  expressed  by  the  name  Chiist.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore, 
that  this  term  implies  in  3Iark  a  relation  of  mysterious  Sonship  between  the  person 
of  Jesus  and  the  Divine  Being.*  All  these  passages  quoted  by  Kcim  only  prove 
what  is  self-apparent,  that  the  notion  of  the  natural  birth  of  Jesus  was  that  of  the 
Jewish  people,  and  also  of  the  apostles  in  the  early  days  of  their  faith,  before  they 
received  fuller  information.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising,  therefore,  that  it  remained 
the  idea  of  the  Ebionitish  churches,  which  never  really  broke  with  the  Israel ilisli 
past,  but  were  contented  to  apply  1o  Jesus  the  popular  notion  of  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
Eeim  also  linds  a  trace  of  this  alleged  primitive  theory  in  the  two  genealogies  con- 
tained in  Luke  and  Matthew.  According  to  him,  these  documents  imply,  l)y  their 
very  nature,  that  those  who  drew  them  up  held  the  idea  of  a  natural  birth.  For 
Avhat  interest  could  they  have  had  in  giving  the  genealogical  tree  of  Joseph,  unless 
they  had  regarded  him  as  the  father  of  the  Messiah  ?  Further,  in  order  to  make  ihese 
documents  square  with  their  new  theory  of  the  miraculous  birth,  the  two  evangelists 
have  been  obliged  to  subject  them  to  arbitrary  revision,  as  is  seen  in  the  appendix 
«;  ?/5  .  .  .  Matt.  1  :  16,  and  in  the  parenthesis  ur  houi^sro,  Luke  3  :  23.  It  is 
very  possible,  indeed,  that  the  original  documents,  reproduced  in  Matt.  1  and  Luke  3, 
were  of  .Jewish  origin  :  they  were  probably  the  same  public  registers  (  diAroi  t^riuoriaL) 
from  which  the  historian  Josephus  asserts  that  his  own  genealogy  was  taken. f 
It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  such  documents  could  contain  no  indication  of  the  mirac- 
ulous birth  of  .Jesus,  if  even  thev  went  dnwn  to  Him.  But  how  could  this  fact  fur- 
nish a  proof  of  the  primitive  opinion  of  the  Church  about  the  birth  of  its  Head  ?  It 
is  in  these  genealogies,  as  revised  and  completed  by  Christian  historians,  that  we  must 
seek  the  sentiments  of  the  primitive  Church  respecting  the  person  of  her  Master. 
And  this  is  precisely  what  we  find  in  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.     Tiie  former, 

*  If  the  Sinaiticus  suppresses  it,  this  is  one  of  the  numberless  omissions,  resulting 
from  the  negliirence  of  the  copyist,  with  which  this  manuscript  abounds, 
f  "  Jos.  Vila,"  c.  i. 


GENERAL   CONSlDKliATIONS    OX    ClIAl'S.   I.    AM)    H.  101 

ir  dfmonslruting.  by  the  i^cncaloiry  whicih  lie  presents  to  us,  tlie  Davidic  sotiship  of 
Joseph,  ileelares  that,  as  legaids  Jesus,  this  ba:iie  Joseph  suslaiiis  pari  of  the  adop- 
tive, legal  falher.  The  exliaet  from  the  iiuhhe  legisters  wliieh  llie  sLCoiid  hands 
dowu  is  not  another  edition  of  that  of  Juseph,  iu  eoulnulietion  with  tiie  former  ;  it  is 
llie  genealogy  of  Levi,  the  father  of  Mary  (see  1  :  28).  In  iransndlling  tiiis  document. 
Luke  is  careful  to  observe  that  the  opinion  which  made  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph  was 
oidy  a  popular  prejudice,  and  that  the  relationship  of  which  he  here  indicates  the 
links  is  the  only  leal  one.  These  are  not,  therefore,  Jewish-Christian  materials,  us 
Keim  maiulains.  but  purely  Jewish  ;  and  the  evangelists,  when  inserting  them  into 
their  writings,  have  imprinted  on  them,  each  after  his  own  manner,  the  Christian  seal. 

Keim  reUes  further  on  the  silence  of  Paul  respecting  the  miraculous  birth.  But  is 
he  really  silent  ?  Cm  it  be  maintained  that  the  exprtssion,  Kom.  1:3,  "made  of 
the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,"  was  intended  by  Paul  to  describe  the  entire 
fact  of  the  human  birth  of  Jesus  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  ihe  words,  accvrdiitfj  to  the 
flesh,  are  a  restriction  expressly  designed  to  indicate  another  side  to  this  fact,  the 
action  of  another  factor,  called  iu  the  following  clause  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  which 
lie  explains  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection?  The  notion  of  the  miraculous  birth 
appears  equally  indispensable  to  explain  the  antithesis,  1  Cor.  15:47:  "The  first 
man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy  ;  the  second,  from  heaven."  But  whatever  else  he  is,  Paul 
is  a  man  of  logical  mind.  How  then  could  he  affirm,  on  the  one  hand,  the  hereditary 
transmission  of  sin  and  death  b}'  natural  generation,  as  he  does  in  Rom.  5  :  13,  and  ou 
the  other  the  truly  luiman  birth  of  Jesus  (Gal.  4  :  4),  whom  he  regards  as  the  Holy 
One,  if,  iu  his  view,  the  birth  of  this  extraordinary  man  was  not  of  an  exceptional 
character?  Only,  as  this  fact  could  not,  from  its  very  nature,  become  the  subject  of 
apostolical  testimony,  nor  for  (hat  reason  enter  into  gent  ral  preaching,  Paul  does  not 
include  it  among  the  elements  of  the  -nafmSoati  whicu  he  enumerates,  1  Cor.  15  :  1  et 
seq.  And  if  he  does  not  make  any  special  dogmatic  use  of  it,  it  is  because,  as  we 
have  observed,  the  miraculous  birth  is  only  the  negative  condilion  of  the  holiness  of 
Jesus  ;  its  positive  condition  is,  and  must  be,  his  voluntary  obedience  ;  consequently 
it  is  this  that  Paul  pailicularly  brings  out  (Rom.  8  : 1-A).  These  reasons  apply  to  the 
other  didactic  wiitings  of  the  N.  T. 

Second.  It  is  arbitrary'  to  maintain  that  the  narrative  of  the  descent  of  the  Hnly 
Spirit  is  only  a  later  complement  of  the  theory  of  the  natural  birth.  Is  not  this  nar- 
rative found  in  two  of  our  synoptics  by  the  side  of  that  of  the  supernatural  birth? 
And  yet  this  is  only  a  compicment  of  the  theory  of  the  natural  birth  !  Further,  in 
all  these  synoptics  alike,  it  is  found  rloseli'  and  organically  connected  with  two  other 
facts,  the  ministry  of  John  and  the  temptation,  which  proves  that  these  three  narra- 
tives foimed  a  very  firmly  connected  cycle  in  the  evangelical  tradition,  and  belonged 
to  the  very  earliest  preaching. 

Third.  The  idea  of  the  pre-existence  of  Je^us  is  in  no  way  a  rival  theory  to  that 
of  the  miraculous  biith  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  former  implies  the  latter  as  its  necessary 
element.  It  is  the  idea  of  the  natural  birth  which,  if  we  think  a  little,  appears  in- 
compatible with  that,  of  ihe  incarnation.  M.  Secretan  admirably  says  :  "  JIan  repre- 
sens  the  principle  of  individuality,  of  progress  ;  woman,  tliatof  traditi.m,  generalit3% 
species.  The  Saviour  could  not  be  the  son  of  a  particular  man  ;  He  behoved  to  be 
the  son  of  humanit}',  the  Son  of  man."  * 

*  "  La  Raison  et  le  Christianisrae,"  pp.  259  and  277. 


102  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

Fourth.  So  fur  from  tliere  beiug  iu  the  N.  T.  writings  traces  of  three  opposite 
theories  on  this  poiut,  the  real  state  of  the  case  is  this  :  The  disciples  set  out,  just  as 
the  Jewish  people  did,  with  the  idea  of  an  ordinary  birth  ;  it  was  the  natural  suppo- 
siliun  (John  1  :  45).  But  as  they  came  to  understand  tlie  proplietic  testimony,  which 
malcea  the  .Messiah  the  supreme  manifestation  of  Jehovah,  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Himself,  which  constantly  implies  a  divine  baci^grouud  to  His  human  existence,  they 
suon  rose  to  a  knowledge  of  the  God-man,  whose  human  existence  was  preceded  by 
His  divine  existence.  This  step  was  taken,  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Chuich,  a 
quarter  of  a  century  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  Epistles  of  Paid  are  evidence  of  it 
(1  Cor.  8:6;  Col.  1  •  15-17  ;  Phil.  2  :  6,  7)  Lastly,  the  mode  of  transition  from  the 
divine  existence  to  the  human  life,  the  fact  of  the  miraculous  birth,  entered  a  little 
later  into  the  sphere  of  the  ecclesiastical  world,  by  means  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  about  Ihiity-five  or  forty  years  after  the  departure  of  the  Saviour. 

111.  Connection  between  these  Narratioes  and  the  Chriistian  Fadh  in  general. — The 
miraculous  birth  is  immediately  and  closely  connected  with  the  perfect  holiness  of 
Christ,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  Christology  ;  so  much  s:),  that  whoever  denies  the 
former  of  these  miracles  must  necessaiiiy  be  led  to  deny  the  latter;  and  whoever 
accepts  the  second  cannot  fail  to  fall  back  on  the  first,  which  is  indeed  implied  in  it. 
As  to  the  objection,  that  even  if  the  biblical  nariative  of  the  miraculnus  birtli  is 
accepte.1,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  how  it  was  that  sin  was  not  communicated  to 
Jesus  through  His  mother,  it  has  been  already  answered  (p.  95).  The  nuraculous 
biith  is  eijually  inseparable  from  the  fact  of  the  incarnation.  It  is  true  that  the  first 
may  ije  admitted  and  the  second  rejected,  but  the  reverse  is  impossible.  The  neces- 
sity for  an  exceptional  mode  of  birth  results  from  the  pre-existence  (p.  IGO).  But 
here  we  confront  the  great  objection  to  the  miraculous  birth  :  What  becomes,  from 
this  point  of  view,  of  the  real  and  proper  liumanity  of  the  Saviour  ?  Can  it  be  recon- 
ciled with  this  exceptional  mode  of  birth  ?  "  The  conditions  of  existence  being  differ- 
ent from  ours,"  says  Keim,  "  equality  of  nature  no  longer  exists. "  But,  we  would 
ask  those  who  reason  in  this  way,  do  you  admit  the  theories  of  Vogt  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  human  race  ?  Do  you  make  man  proceed  from  the  brute  ?  If  nut,  then 
you  admit  a  creation  of  the  human  race  ;  and  in  this  case  you  must  acknowledge  that 
the  conditions  of  existence  in  the  case  of  the  first  couple  were  quite  diffeient  from 
ours.  Do  you,  on  this  ground,  deny  the  full  and  real  humanity  of  the  first  man? 
But  to  deny  the  human  character  to  the  being  from  whom  has  pioceeded  by  way  of 
generation,  that  is  to  say,  by  llie  transmission  of  his  own  nature,  all  that  is  called 
man,  would  be  absurd.  Identity  of  nature  is  possible,  therefore,  notwithstanding  a 
difference  in  the  mode  of  origin.  To  understand  this  fact  completely,  we  need  to 
have  a  complete  insight  into  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  species,  which  is  the 
most  unfalhoniable  secret  of  nature.  But  there  is  something  here  still  more  serious. 
Jesus  is  not  only  the  coutinuator  of  human  nature  as  it  already  exists  ;  He  is  the 
elect  of  God,  by  whom  it  is  to  be  renewed  and  raised  to  its  destined  perfectiun.  In 
Him  is  accomplished  the  new  creation,  which  is  the  true  end  of  the  old.  This  work 
of  a  higher  nature  can  only  take  place  in  virtue  of  a  fresh  and  immediate  contact  of 
creative  power  with  human  nature.  «■'  Keim  agrees  with  this  up  to  a  certain  point  ; 
for  while  holding  the  paternal  concurrence  in  the  birth  of  this  extraordinary  man, 
he  admits  a  divine  interposition  which  profoundly  influenced  and  completely  sancti- 
fied the  appearance  of  this  Being.*  This  attempt  at  explanation  is  an  homage 
*  "  Gesch.  Jcsu,"  t.  i.  pp.  357,  358. 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS    ON    CHAPS.   I.    AND    II.  ]  03 

renrieri'd  to  the  incompanible  moral  grcafuess  of  Jesus,  aud  we  think  it  ]caves  iiu- 
touchud  the  great  object  of  faith — Jesus  Christ's  dignity  as  the  Saviour.  But  must 
we  not  retort  upon  this  explanation  the  objection  wliich  Iveini  brings  against  tiie  two 
niitions  of  the  pre-existence  and  tlie  superualural  birlli  :  "These  are  theories,  not 
fads  estabJisiied  bj'  any  documents  !"  If  it  is  al)solute]y  necessary  to  acknowjedire 
tliat  Jesus  was  a  man  specitiraJiy  dillerent  from  all  others,*  and  if,  in  order  to  exi»lain 
tills  plienomenou,  it  is  iudispensal)Ie  to  stipulate,  as  Keim  really  does,  for  an  excep- 
tional mode  of  origin,  then  why  not  keep  to  tlie  positive  statements  of  our  Gospels, 
which  satisfy  this  demand,  rather  than  tlirow  ourselves  upon  pure  speculation  ? 

IV.  Origin  of  the  KarratiKca  of  the  Infancy. — The  difference  of  style,  so  absolute 
and  abrupt,  between  Luke's  preface  (1  : 1-4)  and  the  foHowiug  narratives,  leaves  no 
room  for  doubt  that  from  1  :  5  the  author  makes  use  of  documents  of  which  he  scru- 
pidousl}'  preserves  the  very  form.  What  were  these  documents?  According  to 
Sclileierniiiclier,  they  were  brief  family  records  which  the  compiler  of  tiie  Gos{)el 
contented  himself  with  connecting  together  in  such  a  way  as  to  form  a  continuous 
narrative.  But  the  modes  of  conclusion,  and  the  general  views  which  appear  as 
recurring  topics,  in  which  Schlelermacher  sees  the  proof  of  Iiis  hypolhesis,  on  the 
contrary  upset  it.  For  these  brief  summaries,  by  their  resemblance  and  correspond- 
ence, prove  a  unity  of  composition  in  the  entire  narrative.  Volkmar  regards  the 
sources  of  these  narratives  as  some  originally  Jewish  materials,  into  which  tiie  anthnr 
has  infused  his  own  Pauline  feeling.  According  to  Keim,  their  source  would  lie  (he 
great  Ebionilish  writing  which  constitutes,  in  his  opinion,  the  original  trunk  of  our 
Gospel,  on  which  the  author  set  himself  to  graft  his  Paulinism.  These  two  suppo- 
sitions come  to  the  same  thing.  We  are  certainly  ."Struck  with  tlie  twofold  chaiacler 
of  these  narratives  ;  there  is  a  spirit  of  prolDuud  and  scrupulous  fidelity  to  Hie  law, 
side  by  side  with  a  not  less  marked  universalist  tendencj'.  But  are  these  reully  two 
currents  of  contrary  origin  ?  I  think  not.  The  (dd  covenant  already  cnnlnitied  iiicsi; 
two  currents — one  strictly  legal,  the  other  to  a  great  extent  universalist.  L'niver.sal- 
ism  is  even,  properly  speaking,  the  primitive  current ;  legalism  was  only  added  to  i*^ 
afterward,  if  it  is  true  that  Abraham  preceded  Moses.  Tlie  uatratives  of  the  infancy 
reflect  simply  and  faithfully  this  twofold  character  ;  for  they  exhibit  to  us  the  normal 
transition  from  the  old  to  the  new  covenant.  If  the  so-called  Pauline  element  had 
been  introduced  into  it  subsequently,  it  would  have  taken  away  mucli  more  ol  the 
original  tone,  and  would  not  appear  organically  united  willi  it  ;  aud  if  it  were  only 
the  product  of  a  party  mauccuvre,  its  pnlemical  character  could  not  have  been  so  com- 
pletely disguised.  These  two  elements,  as  they  present  themselves  in  these  narra- 
tives, in  no  way  prove,  Uierefore,  two  sources  of  an  opjiosite  ixdigious  nature. 

The  true  explanation  of  tlie  oiigiu  of  Luke's  and  iMatthew's  narrative  ajipcars  to 
me  to  be  found  in  the  following  fact.  In  IMalthew,  Joseph  is  Hie  principal  persou- 
age.  It  is  to  him  that  the  angel  appears  ;  he  comes  to  calm  his  perplexities  ;  it  is  to 
him  that  the  name  of  .Jesus  is  notified  and  explained.  If  the  picture  of  the  infancy 
be  reiiresented,  as  in  a  stereoscope,  in  a  twofold  form,  in  Matthew  it  is  seen  on  tlio 
side  of  .Joseph  :  in  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  Mari'  who  assumes  the  principal  part. 
It  K  she  who  receives  the  visit  of  tiie  angel  ;  to  her  is  communicated  the  name  of  the 
chil  1  ;  her  private  feelings  are  brought  out  in  tiie  narrative  ;  it  is  she  wlio  is  pronn- 
neut  in  the  address  of  Simeon  and  in  tlie  iiistory  of  the  search  for  the  child.  The 
picture  is  the  same,  but  it  is  taken  this  time  on  Mary's  side. 
*  "  Gcsch.  Jesu,"  t.  i.  p.  3.59. 


104  COMMENTARY   OX   ST.  LUKE. 

From  this  we  can  draw  no  other  conclusion  than  that  the  two  cycles  of  narratives 
emanate  from  two  dilferent  centres.  One  of  these  was  the  circle  of  which  Joseph 
wa«  the  centre,  and  which  we  may  suppose  consisted  of  Cleopas  his  brother,  James 
and  Jude  his  sons,  of  whom  one  was  the  first  bishop  of  the  flock  at  Jerusalem  ;  and 
Simeon,  a  son  of  Cleopas,  the  first  successor  of  James.  The  narratives  preserved 
among  these  persons  might  easily  reach  the  ear  of  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel,  who 
douDlless  lived  in  the  midst  of  this  flock  ;  and  his  Gospel,  which,  far  more  than 
Luke's,  was  the  record  of  the  official  preaching,  was  designed  to  reproduce  rather 
that  side  of  thajacts  which  up  to  a  certain  point  already  belonged  to  the  public.  But 
a  cycle  of  narratives  must  also  have  formed  itself  round  Mary,  in  the  retreat  in  which 
she  ended  her  career.  These  narratives  would  have  a  much  more  prieate  character, 
and  would  exhibit  more  of  the  inner  meaning  of  the  external  facts.  These,  doubtless, 
are  thos«  which  Luke  has  preserved.  How  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  access  to  this 
source  of  information,  to  which  he  probably  alludes  in  the  avuOev  (1  :  3),  we  do  not 
know.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  nature  of  these  narratives  was  better  suited  to  the 
private  character  of  his  work.  Does  not  Luke  give  us  a  glimpse,  as  it  were  de- 
signedly, of  this  incomparable  source  of  information  in  the  remarks  (2  :  19,  and  50, 
51)  Tv'hich,  from  any  other  point  of  view,  could  hardly  be  anything  else  than  a  piece 
of  charlatanism  ? 

We  think  that  these  two  cycles  of  narratives  existed  for  a  certain  time — the  one  as 
a  public  traditi(m,  the  other  as  a  family  souvenir,  in  a  purely  oral  form.  The  author 
of  the  first  Gospel  was  doubtless  the  first  who  drew  up  the  former,  adapting  it  to  the 
didactic  aim  which  he  proposed  to  himself  in  his  work.  The  latter  was  originally  iu 
Aramaean,  and  under  any  circumstances  could  only  have  been  drawn  up,  as  we  have 
shown,  after  the  termination  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  It  was  in  this  form  that  Luke 
found  it.  He  translated  it,  and  inserted  it  in  his  work.  The  very  songs  had  been 
faithfully  preserved  until  then.  Forthis  there  was  no  need  of  the  stenograplier.  Mary's 
heart  had  preserved  all  ;  the  writer  himself  testifies  as  much,  and  he  utters  no  vain 
words.  The  deeper  feelings  are,  the  more  indelibly  graven  on  the  soul  are  the  llioxights 
which  embody  them  ;  and  the  recollection  of  tlie  peculiar  expressions  in  which  they 
find  utterance  remains  indissolubly  linked  with  the  recollection  of  the  thoughts  them- 
selves.    Every  one  has  verified  this  experience  in  the  graver  moments  of  his  life. 

Lastly,  in  the  question  which  now  occupies  our  attention,  let  us  not  forget  to  bear 
in  mind  the  importance  which  these  narratives  possessed  in  the  view  of  the  two  writ- 
ers who  have  handed  them  down  to  us.  They  wrote  seriously,  because  they  were 
believers,  and  wrote  to  win  the  faith  of  the  world. 


CHAP.   III.  :  1.  105 


SECOiND    PAl 


I 


THE  AD  YEN  T   OF  THE  MESSIAH. 

Chap.  3  : 1  ;  4  :  13. 

Fon  eighteen  years  Jesus  lived  unknown  in  tlie  seclusidn  of  Nazareth.  His 
feliow-lownsmen,  recalling  this  period  of  His  life,  designate  Iliiu  the  carpenter  (Mark 
G  :  3).  Justin  iVlartjT — deriving  the  fact,  doubtless,  from  tradition — represents  Jesus 
as  making  ploughs  and  yokes,  and  teaching  men  rigliteousness  by  these  products  of 
Ilis  peaceful  toil.*  Beneath  the  veil  of  tl:is  life  of  humble  toil,  an  inward  development 
was  arcom|ilished,  which  resulted  in  a  state  of  perfect  receptivity  for  the  measureless 
communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  This  result  was  attained  just  when  Jesus 
reached  the  climacteric  of  human  life,  the  age  of  thirtJ^  when  both  sou!  and  body 
cnj.iy  tl)e  higliest  degree  of  vilalily,  antl  are  fitted  to  become  the  perfect  organs  of  a 
higher  inspiration.  The  forerunner  then  having  given  the  signal  Jesus  left  Ilis  ob- 
scurity to  accomplish  the  task  which  had  pi'esented  itself  to  Him  for  the  first  time  in 
the  temple,  when  He  was  twelve  years  of  age,  as  the  ideal  of  His  life — the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the  eartli.  Here  begins  the  second  phase  of  His  e.x- 
istcnce,  during  which  He  gave  forth  what  He  had  received  in  tJie  first. 

This  transition  from  private  life  to  public  activity  is  the  subject  of  the  following 
part,  which  comprises  four  sections  :  1,  The  ministry  of  John  the  Haptist  (3  ,  1-20) , 
2.  Tiie  baptism  of  Jesus  (vers.  21,  22)  ;  8.  The  geneah)gy  (vers.  23-38)  ,■  4.  The  temp- 
tation (4  : 1-13).  The  corresponding  part  in  the  two  other  synoptics  embraces  only 
numbers  1,  2,  and  4.  "We  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  tlie  connenlion  be- 
tween these  three  sections,  and  the  reason  which  induced  St.  Luke  to  intercaliitt  tho 
fourth. 

FIRST   NARRATIVE. — CHAP.    3  :  1-20. 

TJie  Miniistry  of  John  the  Baptist. 

We  already  know  from  1  :  77  why  the  Messiah  was  to  have  a  forerunner.  A  mis- 
taken notion  of  salvation  had  taken  possession  of  Israel.  It  was  necessary  that  a  man 
clothed  with  divine  authority  should  restore  it  to  its  purity  before  the  Messiah  labored 
to  accomplish  it.  Perhaps  no  more  stirring  character  is  presented  in  sacred  history 
than  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  The  people  are  excited  at  iiis  appearing  ;  their  con- 
sciences are  aroused  ;  mullitudes  flock  to  him.  The  entire  nation  is  filled  Avith 
solemn  expectation  ;  and  just  at  the  moment  when  this  man  has  only  to  speak  the 
word  to  make  himself  the  centre  of  this  eulire  movement,  he  not  only  refrains  from 
saying  this  word,  but  he  pronounces  another.     He  directs  all  the  eager  glances  that 

*  "  Dial.  c.  Try  ph."  c.  88. 


106  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

were  fixed  ui)on  himself  to  One  coining  after  him,  whose  sandals  he  is  not  worthy  to 
cany.  Then,  as  soon  as  liis  succt^ssor  has  appeared,  he  retires  to  the  background, 
and  gives  enthusiastic  expression  to  liis  joy  at  seeing  himself  eclipseil.  Criticism  is 
fertile  in  resources  of  every  kind  ;  but  with  this  unexampled  moral  phenomenon  to 
account  for,  it  will  find  it  difficult  to  give  any  satisfactory  explanation  of  it,  without 
appealing  to  some  factor  of  a  higher  order. 

Luke  begins  by  framing  the  fact  which  he  is  about  to  relate  in  a  general  outline  of 
the  history  of  the  time  (vers.  1  and  2).  He  next  describes  the  personal  appearance  of 
John  the  Baptist  (vers.  3-6)  ;  he  gives  a  summary  of  his  preaching  (vers.  7-18) ;  and 
he  finishes  with  an  anticipatory  account  of  his  imprisonment  (vers.  19,  20). 

1  Vers  1  and  2  *  In  this  conci.se  description  of  the  epoch  at  which  John  ap- 
peared, Luke  begins  with  the  largest  sphere — that  of  the  empi  e.  Then,  by  a  natural 
transition  furnished  by  his  reference  to  the  representative  of  imperial  power  in  Judaea, 
he  passes  to  the  special  domain  of  the  people  of  Israel  ;  and  he  shows  us  the  II:)ly 
Land  divided  into  four  distinct  states.  After  having  thus  described  the  political 
situation,  he  sketches  in  a  word  the  ecclesiastical  and  religious  position,  which  biiugs 
him  to  his  subject.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  considerable  skill  in  this  pre- 
amble.    Among  the  evangelists,  Luke  is  the  true  historian. 

And  first  the  empire.  Augustus  died  on  the  19th  of  August  of  the  year  7G7  u.c, 
corresponding  to  the  year  14  and  15  of  our  era.  If  Jesus  was  born  in  749  or  750  u.c, 
He  must  have  been  at  this  time  about  eighteen  years  of  age.  At  the  death  of 
Augustus,  Tiberius  had  already,  for  two  years  past,  shared  his  throne.  The  fifleenlU 
year  of  his  reigu  may  consequently  be  reckoned,  either  from  the  time  wlxCii  he  began 
to  share  the  sovereignty  with  Augustus,  or  from  the  time  when  he  began  toieign 
alone,  upon  the  death  of  the  latter.  Tlie  Roman  historians  generally  date  the  reign 
of  Tiberius  from  the  time  when  he  began  to  reign  alone.  According  to  this  mode  of 
reckoning,  the  fifteenth  year  would  be  the  year  of  Rome  781  to  782,  that  is  to  say, 
38  to  29  of  our  era.  But  at  this  time  Jesus  would  be  already  thirtj'-two  to  fhiity- 
Ihree  years  of  a^e,  which  would  be  opposed  to  the  statement  3  :  23,  according  t.j 
which  He  was  only  thirty  years  old  at  the  time  of  His  baptism,  toward  the  end  of 
John's  ministry.  According  to  the  other  mode  of  reckoning,  the  fifteenth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  would  be  the  year  of  Rome  779  to  780.  26  to  27  of  our  era.  Jesus 
would  be  about  twenty-nine  years  old  when  John  the  Baptist  appealed  ;  and  suppos- 
ing that  the  puidic  ministry  of  the  latter  lasted  six  months  or  a  year,  He  would  be 
about  thirty  years  of  age  wdieu  He  received  l)aptism  from  him.  In  this  way 
agreement  is  established  between  the  two  chronological  data,  3  : 1  and  23.  It  has 
long  been  maintained  that  this  last  mode  of  reckoning,  as  it  is  foreign  to  the  Runuui 
writers,  could  only  be  attributed  to  Luke  to  meet  the  requirements  of  harmonists. 
Wieseler,  however,  has  just  proved,  by  inscriptions  and  medals,  that  it  prevailed  in 
the  East,  and  particularly  at  Antioch,f  whence  Luke  appears  originally  to  have  come, 
and  where  he  certainly  resided  for  some  time. 

*  Ver,  1  !S*  omits  iTovoaiai;  .  .  .  Avaavfov  (confusion  of  the  two  ttjc).  Vor. 
2.  Instead  of  aoxtsueup,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  some  Mnn.  Iipi*^'-'M"e.  Vg. 
all  the  Mjj.,  etc,  read  apxufiEuS. 

f  "  Beitrage  zur  richtigen  Wiirdigung  der  Evangelien,"  etc.,  1869,  pp.  101-194. 
As  to  seeing,  with  him.  in  the  terms  Kalaao  (instead  of  Augustus)  and  iiyefiov^n  (in- 
stead of  uovnox'ta)  proofs  of  the  co-regency  of  Tiberius,  these  are  subtleties  in  which 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  follow  this  scholar. 


(  iiAi'.    111.  :  1.  107 

Tiio  circle  utirroT^s.  "We  return  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  title  of  Pontius  Pilate 
was  propcily  iiiTpoiTiii,  procurator.  Tluit  of  yye/auv  belouyed  to  llie  superior,  the 
govcruor  of  Syria.  i>ut  as,  in  Judtca,  tlie  military  ooniiuand  was  j.iiucd  to  tlic  civil 
autiioiity,  tlie  pruouraior  had  a  ri.iflil  to  the  title  of  yytmJv.  Upon  the  depiivaliou  of 
Aichciaus,  son  ot  Herod,  in  the  year  G  of  our  era,  Judiea  was  united  to  tlie  cai[)ire. 
It  tuimed,  with  Samaria  and  Idumea,  one  of  the  districts  of  the  province  of  Syria. 
Pilate  was  its  fifth  governor.  He  airived  there  in  the  year  36,  or  sooner,  in  the 
autumn  of  the  year  25  of  our  era  ;  thus,  in  any  case,  a  very  short  time  before  the 
niini.«-tri'  of  John  the  Baptist.     He  remained  in  power  ten  years. 

Ilerod,  in  his  will,  made  a  division  of  his  kingdom.  The  first  share  was  given  to 
Aichelaus,  with  the  title  of  ethnarch — an  inferior  title  to  thai  of  king,  but  superior  to 
that  of  tctrarch.  This  share  soou  passed  to  the  Romans.  Tlie  second,  which  com- 
piised  Galilee  and  the  Pera'a,  was  that  of  Ilerod  Aulii)as.  Tlie  title  of  Ictrarch,  given 
to  this  prince,  signifies  properly  soccniffn  of  a  fourth.  It  was  then  employed  as  a 
designation  for  dependent  petty  princes  junong  whom  had  been  shared  (originally  in 
fourths*)  ctrlain  territories  previousl}'  united  under  a  single  scei)lrc.  Ilerod  Aritipas 
reigned  for  forty-two  years,  until  the  year  oU  of  our  era.  The  entire  ministry  of  our 
Loid  was  therefore  accomplished  in  his  reign.  The  third  share  was  Philip's,  another 
son  of  Ilerod,  who  had  the  same  title  as  Antipas.  It  embraced  Ituiaja  (Dschedui),  a 
country  situated  to  the  south-east  of  the  Libanus,  but  not  mentioned  by  Josephus 
among  the  states  of  Philip,  and  in  addition,  Trachonitis  and  Balanaja.  Philip  reigned 
o7  years,  until  the  year  3-i  of  our  era.  If  the  title  of  teirarch  be  taken  in  its  etymo- 
logical sense,  this  term  would  imply  that  Ilerod  had  made  a  fourth  share  of  his 
stales  ;  and  this  would  nalurally  be  that  which  Luke  here  designates  b}^  the  name  of 
Aliilene,  and  which  he  assigns  to  Lysanias.  Abila  was  a  town  situated  to  the  north- 
west of  Damascus,  at  the  foot  of  the  xVnti-Libanus.  Half  a  century  before  the  time 
of  which  we  are  wiiliug,  there  reigned  in  this  country  a  certain  Lysanias,  the  son 
and  successor  of  Ptolemy  king  of  Chalcis.  This  Lysanias  was  assassinated  Ihirtj'^-six 
years  before  our  era  by  Antony,  who  gave  a  part  of  his  dominions  to  Cleopalra.f 
His  heritage  then  passed  into  various  hands.  Profane  history  mentions  no  Lysanias 
afier  that  one  ;  and  Sirauss  is  eager  to  accuse  Luke  of  having,  by  a  gross  error,  made 
Lysanias  live  and  reign  .sixty  years  after  his  death.  Keim  forms  an  equally  un- 
favorable estimate  of  the  statement  of  Luke.|  But  while  we  possess  no  positive  pi  oof 
establishing  Ihe  existence  of  a  Lysanias  posterior  to  the  one  of  v.'hom  Josephus 
speaks,  we  ought  at  least,  before  accusing  Luke  of  such  a  serious  error,  to  take  into 
consideration  the  following  facts  :  1.  The  ancient  Lysanias  bore  the  title  of  king, 
which  Antony  had  given  him  (Dion  Cassius,  xlix.  32),  and  not  the  very  inferior  title 
of  tetrareh.s^  2.  He  only  reigned  from  four  to  five  years  ;  and  it  would  be  diflinult 
to  understand  how,  after  such  a  short  possession,  a  century  afterward,  had  Abilene 
even  belonged  to  him  of  old,  it  should  still  have  borne  for  this  sole  reasim,  in  all  the 
historians,  the  name  of  Abilene  of  Ly.sanias  (Jos.  Anliq.  xviii.  G.  10,  xix.  5.  1,  etc.  ; 
Ptolem.   V,   18).     3.  A  medal  and  an  inscription  found  by  Pococke  \   mention  a 

*  Wiescler,  work  cited,  p.  204. 

+  .Jos.  "  Anliq."  xiv.  7.  4  ;  "Bell.  Jud."  i.  9.  2  ;  '•  Antiq."  xv.  4.  1.  xiv.  13.  3. 

;  "  In  the  tiiird  ttlrarch,  Lysanias  of  Abilene,  Luke  introduces  a  personage  who. 
did  not  exist"  ("  Gesch.  Jesu,"  I.  i.  p.  GlH). 

^  Not  one  of  the  numerous  passages  cited  by  Keim  (i.  p.  01!),  note)  proves  the  con- 
trary. I  "  Morgenlaud,"  ii.  177. 


108  COMMKNTAUY    OX    ST,   LUKE, 

Lysanias  tetrarch  and  high  priest,  titles  which  do  not  naturally  apply  to  the  ancirnt 
king  Lysaiiius.  From  all  these  facts,  therefore,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  conclude, 
wilh  several  interpreters,  that  there  was  a  younger  Lysanias— a  descendant,  doubt- 
less, of  the  precediug — who  possessed,  not,  as  his  ancestor  did.  Die  entire  kingdom  of 
Chalcis,  but  simply  tbe  tetrarchate  of  Abilene.  This  natural  supposition  ma}^  at  tlie 
present  day  be  asserted  as  u  fact.*  Two  inscriptions  recently  deciphered  prove  :  1. 
That  at  the  ver}^  time  when  Tiberius  was  co-regent  v.-ith  Ausrustus,  there  actually 
existed  a  tetrarch  Lysanias.  For  it  was  a  freedman  of  this  Lysanias,  named  Tsym- 
plia3us  (Nv/j(i)aioS  .  .  .  Avaaviov  rerpilpx^iv  a7T€AEv0etJO(,),  who  had  executed  some  con- 
siderable works  to  which  one  of  these  inscriptions  refers  ^oeckh's  Corbus  inscript, 
Gr,  No.  4521).  2.  That  this  Lysanias  was  a  descendant  of  the  ancient  Lysanias. -f 
This  may  be  inferred,  with  a  probability  verging  on  certaintj',  from  the  terms  of  the 
other  inscription  :  "  and  to  the  sons  of  Lysanias"  (Ibid.  No.  4523).  Augustus  took 
pleasure  in  restoring  to  the  children  what  his  rivals  had  formerly  taken  away  from 
tlieir  fathers.  Thus  the  young  Jamblichus,  king  of  Eniesa,  received  from  him  the 
inheritance  of  his  father  of  the  same  name,  slain  by  Antony.  In  the  same  way,  also, 
was  restored  to  Archelaus  of  Cappadocia  a  part  of  Cilicia,  which  had  former!}"  be- 
longed to  his  father  of  tlie  same  name.  Why  shoulil  not  Augustus  ha^e  done  as 
much  for  the  young  Lysanias,  whose  ancestor  had  been  shun  and  deprived  t)y  An- 
tony? That  this  country  should  be  here  considered  by  Lul<e  as  b( hinging  to  the 
Holy  Land,  is  expla'ned,  either  by  the  fact  that  Abilene  had  been  temporal ilj'  sub- 
ject to  Herod — and  it  is  somtjtliing  in  favor  of  this  supposition,  that  when  Claudius 
restored  to  Agrippa  I.  all  the  dominions  of  his  grandfather  Herod  the  Great,  he  also 
gave  him  Abilene  X — or  by  this,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  countries  held  by  the  an 
cient  Lysanias  had  been  incorporated  into  the  theocracy  by  ciicumcision  a  century 
before  Christ,  and  that  the  ancient  Lysanias  himself  was  born  of  a  Jewish  mother, 
an  Asmonsean,  and  thus  far  a  Jew.§  This  people,  therefore,  in  a  religious  j)oint  of 
view,  formed  part  of  the  holy  people  as  well  as  the  Idumreans.  The  intention  of 
Luke  in  describing  the  dismemberment  of  the  Holy  Land  at  this  period,  is  to  make 
palpable  the  political  dissolution  into  which  the  theocracy  had  fallen  at  the  time 
when  He  appeared  who  was  to  establish  it  in  its  true  form,  b}^  separating  the  eternal 
kingdom  from  its  temporarj''  covering. 

Luke  passes  to  the  sphere  of  religion  (ver.  2).  The  true  reading  is  doubtless  the 
sing.  apxiEpeuS,  the  Iwjh  priest  Annas  and  Cdinphas.  How  is  this  strange  phrase  to 
be  explained  ?  It  cannot  be  accidental,  or  used  without  thought.  The  predecessor 
of  Pilate,  Valerius  Gratus,  had  deposed,  in  the  year  14,  the  high  priest  Annas.  Then, 
during  a  period  covering  some  years,  four  priestly  rulers  were  chosen  and  deposed  in 
succession.  Caiaphas,  who  had  the  title,  was  son-in-law  of  Annas,  and  had  been  ap- 
pointed by  Gratus  about  the  j^ear  17  of  our  era.  He  tilled  this  office  until  36.  It  is 
possil)le  that,  in  conformity  with  the  law  which  made  the  high -priesthood  an  office 
for  life,  the  nation  continued  to  regard  Annas,  notwithstanding  his  deprivation  and 

*  Wieseler,  work  quoted,  pp.  191  and  202-204. 

f  It  does  not  follow  from  tlie  expression  of  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  i.  9),  recapitu- 
lating the  aoeuunt  of  Josepbus,  that  the  young  Lysanias  was  a  son  of  Herod.  We 
may,  and  indeed,  as  it  appears  to  me,  we  must,  refer  llie  title  of  aSe'AQoi,  brctJuen, 
only  lo  Philip  and  Herod  the  \'ounger,  and  not  to  Lysanias  :  "  The  l)r')lhers  Pijilip 
and  Herod  the  younger,  with  Lysanias,  governed  their  tetrarchies."  The  note  in  the 
first  edition  must  be  corrected  accordingly. 

X  Jos.  "  Anliq  "  xix.  5.  1.  §  "VVieseler,  work  quoted,  p.  304. 


ciiAi'.    111.  :  ;2,  ;5.  loO 

the  different  elections  whicli  followed  this  event,  Jis  the  true  high  priest,  while  all 
those  pontiffs  who  liud  followed  him  were  only,  in  the  eyes  of  the  best  part  of  the 
people,  titular  high  priests.  In  this  way  Luke's  expression  admits  of  a  very  natural 
explanation  :  "  Annas  and  Caiaphas  being  the  high  priests,"  that  is  to  say,  the  two 
high  priests— one  by  right,  the  other  in  fact.  This  expression  Avould  have  all  the 
better  warrant,  because,  as  hist'jr\'  proves,  Annas  in  reality  continued,  as  before,  to 
hold  the  reins  of  government.  This  Wiis  especially  the  case  under  the  pontificate  of 
Caiaphas,  his  son-iu-law.  John  indicates  this  state  of  things  in  a  striking  way  in 
two  p.ujsagcs  relating  to  the  trial  of  Jesus,  18  :  13  and  24  :  "  And  they  bound  Jesus, 
and  led  Ilim  away  to  Annas  first  ;  for  he  was  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas. 
And  Annas  sent  Jesus  bound  to  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest."  These  words  furuisii 
in  soraj  sort  a  commentary  on  Luke's  expression.  These  two  persons  constituted  really 
one  and  the  same  high  priest.  Add  to  this,  as  we  are  reminded  by  Wieseler,  that  the 
higher  administration  was  then  shared  ofliciallj''  between  two  persons  whom  the  Talmud 
always  designates  as  distinct— the  nafi,  who  presided  over  the  Sanhodtiu,  and  hud 
the  direction  of  public  affairs  ;  and  the  high  priest  properly  so  called,  who  was  at 
the  head  of  the  priests,  and  superintended  matters  of  religion.  Xow  it  is  very  prob- 
able tliat  the  otBce  of  na.si  at  that  time  devolved  upon  Annas.  TVe  are  led  to  this 
conclusion  by  the  powerful  influciuce  wliirh  lie  exerted  ;  by  the  part  wiiich,  accord- 
ing to  John,  he  played  in  the  trial  of  Jesus  ;  and  by  the  passage,  Acts  4  :  (i,  where  lie 
is  found  at  tlie  head  of  the  Sauliedrin  with  the  title  of  aoxieiieui,  while  Caiaphas  is 
only  mentioned  after  him,  as  a  simple  member  of  this  body.  This  separation  of  the 
office  into  two  functions,  which,  united,  had  constituted,  in  the  regular  way,  the  true 
and  complete  theocratic  high-priesthood,  was  the  commencement  of  its  dissolution. 
And  this  is  what  Luke  intends  to  express  by  this  gen.  sing,  apx^efjiui.  in  apposition 
■with  two  [)roper  names.  It  is  just  as  if  he  had  written  :  "  under  the  high  priest  An- 
nas-C.iiaphas."  Disorganization  had  penetrated  beneath  the  surface  of  the  political 
sphere  (ver.  1),  to  the  very  heart  of  the  theocracy.  What  a  frame  for  the  picture  of 
the  appearing  of  the  Restorer  !  The  ex[)ression,  the  word  cams  to  John  (lit.  came 
vpon),  indicates  a  positive  revelation,  either  by  theophany  or  by  vision,  similar  to 
that  which  served  as  a  basis  for  the  ministry  of  the  ancient  prophets  :  Moses,  Ex.  3  ; 
Isaiah,  chap.  G  ;  Jeremiah,  chap.  1  ;  Ezekiel,  chap.  1-3  ;  comp.  John  1  :  33,  and  see 
1:80.  The  word  in  the  wilderness  expressly  connects  this  portion  with  that  last 
passage. 

2.  Vers.  3-G.*  The  country  about  Jordan,  in  Luke,  doubtless  denotes  the  arid 
plains  near  the  mouth  of  this  river.  The  name  wilderness  of  Jiidea,  by  which  ]\Iat- 
thew  and  Mark  designate  the  scene  of  John's  ministry,  applies  properly  to  the  moun- 
tainous and  broken  country  which  forms  the  western  boundary  of  the  plain  of  the 
Jordan  (toward  the  mouth  of  this  river),  and  of  the  northern  part  of  the  basin  of  the 
Dead  Sea  But  as,  according  to  them  also,  John  was  baptizing  in  Jordan,  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea  must  necessarily  have  included  in  their  view  the  lower  course  of  the 
river.  As  to  the  rest,  the  expression  7ie  came  into  supposes,  especially  if  with  the 
Alex,  we  erase  the  rl/v,  that  John  did  not  remain  stationary,  but  went  to  and  fro  in 
the  counti-y.     This  hint  of  the  Syn.,  especially  in  the  form  in  which  it  occurs  in 

*  V(  r.  3.  A.  B.  L.  Or.  omit  rrjv  before  nepixi^pov.  Ver.  4.  ii.  B.  D.  L.  A.  some 
Mnn.  Syr"'"'.  Iii'i<"^''i"'',  omit  XejovroS.  Ver.  5.  B.  D.  Z.  some  3lnn.  It''"i.  Or,  rend 
evOeiai  instead  of  evOeiav. 


110  COMMEXTAKY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

Luke,  ai^rees  perfectly  with  John  10  :  40,  ■where  the  Peraea  is  pointed  out  as  the  prin- 
cipal theatre  of  John's  ministry. 

The  rite  of  baptism,  which  consisted  in  the  plunging  of  the  body  more  or  less 
completely  into  water,  was  not  at  this  period  in  use  among  the  Jews,  neither  for  the 
Jews  tiiemselves,  for  whom  the  law  only  prescribed  lustrations,  nor  for  proselytes 
from  paganism,  to  whom,  according  to  the  testimony  of  history,  baptism  was  noi  ap- 
plied until  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  very  tide  Baptist,  given  to  John,  suffi- 
ciently proves  that  it  was  he  who  introduced  this  rite.  This  follows  also  from  John 
1  :  25,  where  the  deputation  from  the  Sanhedrin  asks  him  by  what  right  he  baptizes,  if 
he  is  neither  the  Messiah  nor  one  of  the  prophets,  which  implies  that  this  rite  was 
introduced  by  him;  and  further,  from  John  3  :  26,  where  the  disciples  of  John  make  it 
a  charge  against  Jesus,  that  He  adopted  a  ceremony  of  which  the  institution,  aud  con- 
sequently, according  to  them,  the  monopoly,  belonged  to  their  master.  Baptism  was 
a  humiliating  rite  for  the  Jews.  It  represented  a  complete  purification  ;  it  was,  as 
it  were,  a  lustration  carried  to  the  second  power,  which  implied  in  him  who  accepted 
it  not  a  few  isolated  faults  so  much  as  a  radical  defilement.  So  Jesus  calls  it  (John 
3  :  5)  a  birtii  of  water*  Already  the  promise  of  clean  water,  and  of  a  fountain  opened 
for  sin  andiindeanness,  in  Ezekiel  (36  :  So)  and  Zechariah  (13  :  1),  had  the  same  mean- 
ing. The  complement /verftiwo;,  of  repentance,  indicates  the  moral  act  which  was  to 
accompany  the  outward  rite,  and  which  gave  it  its  value.  This  term  indicates  a  com- 
plete change  of  mind.  The  object  of  this  new  institution  is  sin,  which  appears  to  the 
baptized  in  a  new  light.  According  to  Matthew  and  Maik,  this  change  was  ex- 
pressed b}''  a  positive  act  which  accompaoied  the  baptism,  the  confession  of  their  sins 
{i^ouoAoyrjaii).  Baptism,  like  every  divinel}^  instituted  ceremony,  contained  also  a 
grace  for  him  who  observed  it  with  the  desired  disposition.  As  Strauss  puts  it :  if, 
on  the  part  of  man,  it  was  a  declaration  of  the  renunciation  of  sin,  on  the  part  of 
God  it  was  a  declaration  of  the  pardon  of  sins.  The  words /or  i/se^^arf/ow  depend 
grammatically  on  the  cnllective  notion,  baptism  of  repentance. 

According  to  ver.  4,  the  forerunner  of  the  Jlessiah  had  a  place  in  the  prophetic 
picture  by  the  side  of  the  ^lessiah  Himself.  It  is  very  generally  taken  for  granted 
by  modern  interpreters,  that  the  prophec3''Isa.  40  :  1-11,  applied  by  the  three  synoptics 
to  the  times  of  the  jSIessiah  aud  to  John  the  Baptist,  refers  properly  to  the  return 
from  the  exile,  and  pictures  the  entrance  of  Jehovah  into  the  Holy  Land  at  the  head 
of  His  people.  But  is  this  interpretation  realiy  in  accordance  with  the  text  of  the 
prophet?  Throughout  tiiis  entire  passage  of  Isaiah  the  people  are  nowhere  repre- 
sented as  returning  to  their  own  country  :  they  are  settled  in  their  cities  ;  it  is  Gofl 
who  comes  to  them  •  "  O  Zion,  get  thee  up  into  a  high  mountain  .  .  .  Lift  up 
thy  voice  with  strength  !  Say  to  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God  !"  (ver.  9). 
So  far  are  the  people  from  following  in  Jehovah's  train,  that,  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  invited  by  the  divine  messenger  to  prepare,  in  the  country  where  they  dwell,  the 
way  by  which  Jehovah  is  to  come  to  them  :  "  Prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord  .  .  . 
and  His  glory  shall  be  revealed  "  (vers.  3  and  5).  The  desert  to  which  the  prophet 
compares  the  moral  condition  of  the  people  is  not  that  of  Syria,  which  had  to  be 

*  There  i?,  to  say  the  least,  no  need  to  connect  our  Lord's  words  with  Baptism, 
when  thej'  have  an  adequate  basis  in  the  prophecies  of  tiie  Old  Testament.  Ezek. 
(36  :  25,  26)  connects  "  clean  water"  and  a  "  new  heart,"  and  in  chap.  37  introduces 
the  quickening  spirit.  His  baptism  had  not  yet  )i"en  formulated,  but  Nicodemus 
ought  to  have  knovsii  these  things  (John  3  :  10). — J.  li. 


(  IIAI'.    III.  :  ;{-7.  11 1 

crossefl  in  returning  from  Biibylon,  a  vast  plain  in  which  thero  are  ncilhor  mountains 
to  level  nor  valleys  to  till  up.  It  is  rather  the  uncultivated  and  roi'ky  hill  country 
which  surrounds  the  verj'  city  of  Jerusalem,  into  which  Jehovah  is  to  make  His  entry 
as  the  Messiah.  If,  therefore,  it  is  indeed  the  cominu;  of  Jehovah  as  j\lessiah  which 
is  promised  in  this  pass;ij;e  (ver.  11,  "  He  sh.iU  feed  His  Hock  like  a  shepherd  . 
lie  shall  carry  the  lambs  in  His  arms"),  tlie  herald  who  invites  the  people  to  prepare 
the  way  of  His  God  is  re;diy  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  The  iniiige  is  takm 
from  an  orienlnl  custom,  according  to  which  the  visit  of  a  sovereign  was  pieceded  by 
the  ariivjil  of  a  courier,  who  called  on  all  the  people  to  make  ready  the  road  by  which 
the  mouarcli  was  to  enter.* 

The  text  is  literally  :  A  voice  of  one  crying  !  .  .  .  There  is  no  finishing  verb  ; 
it  is  an  e.\clamation.  The  messenger  is  not  named  :  his  person  is  of  so  little  conse- 
quence that  it  is  lost  iu  his  message.  The  words  in  tlw  detert  may,  in  Hebrew,  as  in 
Grick,  be  taken  either  with  what  precedes  :  "  cries  in  the  desert,"  or  with  what  fol- 
lows :  "  Prepare  in  the  desert."  It  matters  little  :  the  order  resounds  wlierever  it  is 
to  be  executed.  Must  we  be  satislicd  with  a  general  application  of  the  details  of  the 
picture?  or  is  it  allowable  to  give  a  particular  application  to  them — to  lefer,  for  in- 
stance, the  mouniains  tliat  must  be  levelled  to  the  pride  of  the  Pharisees  ;  the  vallcj's 
to  be  tilled  up,  to  the  moial  and  religious  indiflfereuce  of  such  as  the  iSadducees  ;  the 
crooked  places  to  be  made  straight,  to  the  frauds  and  li^ng  excuses  of  the  publicans  ; 
and  lastly,  the  rough  places,  to  the  sinful  habits  found  in  all,  even  the  best?  How- 
ever this  may  be,  tlie  general  aim  of  the  quotation  is  to  exiiibit  repentance  as  the  soul 
of  John's  bnplism.  It  is  probable  that  the  plur.  cMe/as  was  early  substituted  for  the 
sing.  evOe'iap,  to  conespond  with  the  plur.  rd  OKo^id.  With  this  adj.  o'^uf  or  u(^uvc 
must  be  understood. 

When  once  this  mnrnl  change  is  accomplished,  Jehovah  will  appear.  Kni,  and 
then.  Tlie  Hebrew  text  is  :  "  All  llosh  shall  see  the  glory  of  God."  The  LXX.  have 
translated  it  :  "  The  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  seen  (by  the  Jews?),  and  all  flesh 
(including  the  heathen  ?)  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God."  This  paraphrase,  borrowed 
from  Isa.  o2  :  10,  proceeded  perhaps  from  the  repugnance  which  the  translator  felt  to 
attribute  to  the  heathen  tiie  sight  of  the  glory  of  God,  although  he  concedes  to  them 
a  share  iu  the  salvation.  This  term  salvation  is  preserved  by  Luke  ;  it  suits  the  s])irit 
of  his  Gospel.  Only  the  end  of  the  proohecy  (vers.  5  and  (j)  is  cited  by  Luke.  The 
two  other  s3'noi)tics  linut  themselves  to  the  first  part  ver.  4.  It  is  remarkable  that 
all  three  should  apply  to  tlie  Hebrew  text  and  to  that  of  the  LXX.  the  same  mndifi- 
cation  :  riic  -jiilSiWi  avmv.  His  pat/is,  instead  of  ruS  TpifSov^  tov  Ofov  vfzojv,  the  paths  of 
our  God.  This  fact  has  been  used  to  prove  the  dependence  of  two  of  the  synoptics 
on  the  third.  But  tlie  proof  is  not  valid.  As  Weizsiicker  f  remarks,  this  was  one 
of  the  texts  of  which  freipicnt  use  was  made  in  the  preaching  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  it 
was  customary,  in  applying  the  passage  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  to  quote  it  in 
this  form.  If  Luke  had,  in  this  section,  one  of  the  two  other  synoptics  before  him, 
how  could  he  have  omitted  all  that  refers  to  the  dress  and  mode  of  life  of  the  fore- 
runner ? 

3.  Vers.  7-17.  The  following  discourse  must  not  be  regarded  as  a  particular 
specimeu  of  the  preaching,  the  substance  of  which  Luke  has  transmitted  to  us.     It  is 

*  Lowlh,  "  Isaiah,"  fibers,  v.  Knppe,  ii.  p.  207. 
f  "  Uutersuchuugen,"  p.  24,  note. 


112  COMMEXTAIiY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

a  summary  of  all  the  discourses  of  John  the  Baptist  during  the  period  tliat  pr^-^eded 
the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  imperf.  iXeyev,  lie  used  to  say,  clearly  indicates  Luke's 
inlention.  This  suramarj^  contains — 1.  A  call  to  repentance,  founded  on  the  iirpend- 
iug  jMessianic  judgment  (vers.  7-9)  ;  2.  Special  practical  directions  for  each  cJ-ass  of 
hearers  (vers.  10-14}  ;  C.  The  announcement  of  the  speedy  appearance  of  the  Messiah 
(vers.  15-17). 

Veis.  7-9.  "  Then  said  he  to  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be  baptized 
of  him,  O  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to 
come?  8.  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  and  begin  not  to  say 
within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father;  for  I  say  uuto  you,  that 
Gud  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham.  9.  And  now  also 
the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of  the  trees  ;  every  tree  therefore  which  briug'^th  not 
foitli  good  fruit  is  hewn  down,  and  cast  into  the  fire."  What  a  stir  would  be  pro- 
duced at  the  present  day  by  the  preaching  of  a  man,  who,  clothed  with  the  authority 
of  lioliuess,  should  proclaim  with  power  the  speedy  corning  of  the  Lord,  and  His 
impending  judgment  !  Such  was  the  appearance  of  John  in  Israel.  The  expression 
tliut  came  forth  (ver.  7)  refers  to  their  leaving  inhabited  places  to  go  into  the  desert 
(comp.  vii.  24).  In  Matthew  it  is  a  number  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  that  are 
thus  accosted.  In  that  Gospel,  the  reference  is  to  a  special  case,  as  the  aor.  cI-ev, 
he  said  to  them,  shows.  But  for  all  this  it  may  have  been,  as  Luke  gives  us  to  un- 
derstand, a  topic  on  which  John  ordinarily  expatiated  to  his  hearers.  The  reproachful 
address,  generation  of  vipers,  expresses  at  once  their  wickedness  and  craft.  John 
compares  these  multitudes  who  come  to  his  baptism,  because  they  regard  it  as  a  cere- 
mony that  is  to  insure  their  admission  into  the  ]\lessianic  kingdom,  to  successive 
broods  of  serpents  coming  forth  alive  from  the  body  of  their  dam.  This  severe  term 
is  opposed  to  the  title  children  of  Abraham,  and  appears  even  to  allude  to  another 
father,  whom  Jesus  expressly  names  in  another  place  (John  8  :  37-44).  Ktim  obseives, 
with  truth,  that  this  llgurative  language  of  John  (comp.  the  following  images,  stones, 
trees)  is  altogether  the  language  of  the  desert.*  What  excites  such  lively  indignation 
in  the  forerunner,  is  to  see  people  trying  to  evade  the  duty  of  repentance  by  means 
of  its  sign,  by  baptism  perfoimed  as  an  opus  opcratiim.  In  this  deception  he  per- 
ceives the  suggestion  of  a  more  cunning  counsellor  than  the  heart  of  man.  'Y-jroihi- 
KvvfiL  :  to  address  advice  to  the  ear,  to  suggest.  The  choice  of  this  term  excludes 
Meyer's  sense  :  "  Who  has  reassured  you.  persuading  you  that  your  title  children  of 
Abraham  would  preserve  you  from  divine  wrath  ?"  'Y\\e  wrath  ^o  ca?«e  is  the  Mes- 
siah's judgment.  The  Jews  made  it  fall  solely  on  the  heathen  ;  John  makes  it  come 
down  on  the  head  of  the  Jews  themselves. 

Therefore  (ver.  8)  refers  to  the  necessity  of  a  sincere  repentance,  resulting  from 
the  question  in  ver.  7.  ^he  fruits  worthy  of  repentance  are  not  the  Christian  disposi- 
tions flowing  frrm  faith  ;  they  are  those  acts  of  justice,  equity,  and  humanity,  enu- 
merated vers.  10-14,  the  conscientious  practice  of  which  leads  a  man  to  faith  (Acts 
10  :  35).  But  John  fears  that,  the  moment  their  conscience  begins  to  be  aroused,  they 
will  immediately  soothe  it,  by  reminding  themselves  that  they  are  children  of  Abra- 
ham. M?)  ap^7?a6f,  literally,  "do  not  begin  .  .  ."  that  is  to  say:  "As  soon  as 
my  voice  awakens  you,  do  not  set  about  saying    .     .     ."     The  firi  6{)^7]Te,  do  not 

*  Winer,  "  Realworterbuch,"  on  .Jericho  :  "  This  place  might  have  passed  for  a 
paradise,  apart  from  the  venomous  serpents  found  tliere."  The  trees  along  the 
course  of  the  Jordan. 


(irvi".    111.  :  :-10.  J  l-'5 

think,  in  Malthew,  iuilicalos  jiu  illusoiy  claim.  On  the  abuse  of  this  title  l)j'  tiie 
Jews,  see  John  8  :  33-31),  Udui.  4  :  1,  Jas.  2  :  21.  It  is  to  llie  posterity  of  Abraham, 
doubtless,  that  the  promises  are  made,  but  the  resources  of  God  are  not  limited. 
SiiDuiil  Israel  prove  wantiuir,  with  a  word  He  can  create  for  Himself  u  new  people. 
In  saving,  of  these  sloitcs,  John  points  with  his  finger  to  the  stones  of  the  desert  or  ou 
the  river  banks.  This  warning  is  too  solemn  to  be  only  an  imaginary  supposition. 
John  knew  the  prophecies  ;  he  was  not  ignorant  that  Moses  and  Isaiah  had  announced 
tlie  rejection  of  Israel  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  It  is  by  this  threatening  pros- 
pect that  he  endeavors  to  stir  up  the  zeal  of  his  contemporaries.  This  word  con- 
tained in  germ  the  whole  teaching  of  St.  Paul  on  the  contrast  between  the  carnal 
and  the  spiritual  posterity  of  Abraham  developed  in  Rom.  9  and  Gal.  3.  In  Dtu- 
terouomy  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh  had  already  been  bimilarly  contrasted  with 
the  circumcision  nf  the  heart  (3U  :  6). 

In  vers.  7  and  8  Israel  is  reminded  of  the  incorruptible  holiness  of  the  judgment 
awaiting  them;  ver.  9  proclaims  it  at  hand.  'lU^t]  d^Kai:  "  and  now  also."  The 
imago  is  that  of  an  orcliard  full  of  fruit-trees.  An  invisible  axe  is  laid  at  the  truulc 
of  every  tree.  This  figure  is  connected  with  that  of  the  fruits  (ver.  8).  At  the  first 
signal,  the  axe  will  bury  it.self  in  the  trunks  of  the  barren  trees  ;  it  will  cut  them 
down  to  the  very  roots.  It  is  the  emblem  of  the  oVlessianic  judgment.  It  applies  at 
once  to  the  national  downfall  and  the  individual  condemnation,  twu  notions  wliich 
are  not  yet  distinct  in  the  mind  of  John.  This  fulminating  address  conipietejy  iiii- 
tated  the  ruleis,  who  had  beeu  willing  at  one  time  to  come  and  hear  him  ;  from  this 
time  they  broke  all  conuecticm  with  John  ;ind  his  baptism.  This  explains  the  p  is- 
s:ige  (Luke  7  :  30)  in  which  Jesus  declares  that  the  rulers  refused  to  be  baptized.  This 
rejection  of  John's  ministry  b}'  the  official  authorities  is  equally  clear  IromjMad. 
21  :  35  :  "  If  we  say.  Of  God  ;  he  will  say,  Why  then  did  ye  not  believe  on  him?" 
The  proceeding  of  the  Sanhedrim,  John  1  -.1^  et  scq.,  proves  the  same  thing. 

Vers.  10-14.*  But  what  then,  the  people  ask.  are  those  fruits  of  repcniance 
whicli  should  accompany  baplism?  And,  seized  with  the  fear  of  judgmenl.  diiiL-r- 
ent  clas.ses  of  hearers  approach  John  to  obtain  from  him  special  directions,  filled  to 
their  particular  social  position.  It  is  the  confessional  after  preaching.  This  cbar- 
acterisiic  fragment  is  wanting  in  Matthew  and  ^lurk.  "Whence  has  Luke  obtained 
it?  From  some  oral  or  wiitten  source.  But  this  source  could  not,  it  is  evident, 
contain  simply  the  five  verses  which  follow;  it  must  have  been  a  narrative  of  the 
entire  ministry  of  John.  Luke  therefore  possessed,  on  this  ministry  as  a  whole,  a 
dilTcrent document  from  the  other  two  Syn.  In  this  way  we  can  explain  the  maiked 
differences  of  detail  wliich  we  have  observed  between  his  writing  and  ^Malthcv's  : 
he  says,  instead  of  he.  icas  snyiug,  ver.  7  ;  do  not  begia,  instead  of  think  not,  ver.  8. 

The  imperf.,  asked,  signifies  that  those  questions  of  conscience  were  fre([ucntly 
repeated  (comp.  k/.Eyf.v,  ver.  7),  To  a  similar  question  Si.  Peter  replied  (Acts  2  :  37) 
very  differently.     This  was  because  the  kingdom  of  God  had  come.     The  foieiunuer 

*  Ver.  10.  Almost  all  the  Mjj.,  noirtaufiEv  instead  of  -r^oLTiGo/ieu,  wliich  is  the  read- 
ing of  T.  K.,  with  O.  K.  U.  and  many  ]\Inn.  Ver.  11.  ii  B.  C.  L.  X.  .'^oine  jNInn., 
f/f}ei^  instead  of /fja.  Ver.  12.  Almost  all  the  Mjj..  rrotz/^cjufi' instead  of  ■zotTjaofiei', 
Avliich  is  the  reading  of  T.  B..  wilh  G.  U.  and  many  ^Inn.  Ver.  13.  !**  omil^ 
ei-Ev  -jrpoi  avrnvi.  Ver.  14.  C.  D.  It""'*.,  eTrr/i)u-?]aai>  inslond  of  e-rvripuTDV.  Almost  ail 
the  Mjj.,  n'<iT/nu/iEv  instead  of  izoirinouEv,  which  A.  G.  K.  V.  and  many  ]\lnn.  lead. 
ii  •■  II.  t^y.,  ^r/f5frrt  before  cvKo^av-rjciirE,  instead  of  //77'5f,  whicli  T.  B.  with  all  the  other 
documents  rtad. 


114  COMMENTARY   OX    ST.   LUKE. 

contents  himself  with  requiring  the  works  fitted  to  prepare  his  hearers — tiiose  woilss 
of  moral  lectilmle  and  benevolence  which  are  in  conformity  wilii  the  hiw  written  in 
tlie  heait,  and  which  attest  the  sincerity  of  the  horror  of  evil  professed  in  baptism, 
and  that  earnest  desire  after  good  which  Jesus  so  often  declares  to  be  the  true  prep- 
aration for  l'ail!i  (John  3  :  21).  In  vain  does  hypocrisy  give  itself  to  the  piactice  (jf 
devotion  ;  it  is  on  moral  obligation  faithfully  acknowledged  and  practised  that  the 
blessing  depends  which  leads  men  to  salvation.  There  is  some  hesitation  in  the  form 
■Koiyau^ev  (deliberative  subj.)  ;  the  future  Koii/aofzev  indicates  a  decision  taken.  Yer. 
13,  Updaaeiv,  exact;  the  meaning  is,  no  overcharge  !  Who  are  the  soldier's,  ver.  14? 
Certainlj-  not  the  Roman  soldiers  of  the  garrison  of  Judtea.  Perhaps  military  in  the 
service  of  Antipas  king  of  Galilee  ;  for  they  came  also  from  this  country  to  John's 
baptism.  More  probnbly  armed  men,  acting  as  police  in  Judaea.  Tlurs  the  leim 
cvK.o<pavTElv  admits  of  a  natural  interpretation.  It  signifies  etymological)}''  those  who 
denounced  the  exporters  of  figs  (out  of  Attica),  and  is  applied  generally  to  those  wlio 
play  the  informer.  AiaGelev  appears  to  be  connected  with  the  Latin  word  concutere, 
whence  comes  also  our  Avord  concussion.  These-are  unjust  extortions  on  the  part  of 
subordinates.  The  reading  of  i*.  H.  Pesch.,  iirjfUva,  does  not  deserve  the  honor  Tisch- 
(  ndorf  has  accorded  to  it  of  admitting  it  into  his  text.  When  all  the  people  shall  in 
tills  way  have  made  ready  the  wa,y  of  the  Lord,  they  will  be  that  prepared  people  of 
whom  the  angel  spoke  to  Zacharias  (1  :  17),  and  the  Lord  will  be  able  to  biing  salva- 
tion to  them  (3:  6). 

Vers.  15-17.*  "  And  as  the  people  were  in  cxpectaticn,  and  all  men  mused  in 
their  hearts  of  John,  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not  ;  IG.  John  answered,  saying 
unto  them  all  :  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  ;  but  one  migiilier  than  I  conuth, 
the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  nut  worthy  to  unloose  :  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire  :  17  Whose  fan  is  in  His  hand,  and  He  will  tliorougldy 
purge  His  floor,  and  will  gather  the  wheat  into  His  garner  ;  but  the  chaff  He  will 
burn  with  fire  vmquenchable. "  This  portion  is  common  to  tl>e  three  Syn.  But  the 
preamble,  ver.  15,  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  It  is  a  brief  and  striking  sketch  of  the  gen- 
eral excitement  and  lively  expectation  awakened  hy  .John's  ministry.  The  uwaaiv  of 
the  T.  R.  c  ntains  the  idea  of  a  solemn  gathering  ;  but  this  scene  is  not  the  same  as 
that  of  John  1  :  19,  et  seq.,  which  did  not  take  place  till  after  the  baptism  of  .Tesus. 
In  his  answer  .John  asserts  two  things:  first,  that  he  is  not  the  Messiaii  ;  second, 
that  the  Messiah  is  following  liini  close  at  hand.  The  art  6  before  laxviwrcjioi  denotes 
diis  personage  as  expected.  To  unloose  the  sandals  of  the  master  when  he  came  in 
(Luke  and  Mark),  or  rather  to  bring  them  to  him  (iSaardaai.,  Matt.)  when  he  was  dis- 
posed to  go  out,  was  the  duty  of  the  lowest  class  of  slav.  s.  Mark  expresses  its  menial 
fiharacter  in  a  dramatic  way  :  Kvxjia;  Xmai,  to  stoop  down  and  unloose.  Each  evangelist 
has  thus  his  own  shade  of  thought.  If  one  of  them  had  copied  from  the  other,  these 
changes,  which  would  be  at  once  purposed  and  insignificant,  would  be  puerile. 
'I/capof  may  be  applied  either  to  physical  or  intellectual  capacity,  or  to  moral  diguit3^ 
It  is  taken  in  the  latter  sense  here.  The  pronoun  avroZ  briugs  out  prominently  the 
personality  of  the  Messiah.  The  preposition  h,  which  had  not  been  employed  before 
viarL,  is  added  before  ■Kvevjj.ari ;   the  Spirit  cannot  be  treated  as  a  simple  means.     One 

*  Ver.  16.  !*.  B.  L.,  -rraan  instead  of  mraffiy.  Ver.  17.  J**  13,  a.  e.  Heracleon, 
^laKuOnpai  instead  of  Kai  (hnKaOapiei,  \vhich  is  the  reading  of  T.  K.,  witli  all  the  oHier 
Mjj.  and  all  the  Mnn.  ii"'  B.  c.,  owayayeiv  instead  of  awa^ei,  which  all  the  others 
read. 


CHAP.   III.  :  JS-20.  115 

baptizes  wilh  water,  but  not  with  the  Spirit.  If  the  pardon  grauteil  in  llic  baptism  of 
water  was  not  followed  by  the  l)aplism  of  tiic  Spirit,  sin  would  soon  regain  the  upper 
band,  and  the  pardon  would  be  speedily  annulled  (Matt.  18  :  33-25).  But  let  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  be  added  to  the  baptism  of  water,  and  tin  n  the  pardon  is  con- 
firmed i»y  the  renevval  of  the  heart  and  life.  Almost  all  modern  interpreters  apply 
the  leim  J/^c' to  the  consuming  ardor  of  the  judgment,  according  to  ver.  17,  the  fire 
ichich  is  lud  (jncnclied.  IJut  if  there  was  such  a  marked  contrast  between  the  two 
expressi.ms  Spirit  and //'t,  the  preposition  iv  must  liave  been  repeated  before  the 
latter.  Therefore  there  can  only  be  a  shade  of  dillerence  between  these  two  terms. 
Tlie  Spirit  and  tire  both  denote  the  same  divine  principle,  but  in  two  diU'erent  rela- 
tions with  human  nature  :  the  tirst,  inasmuch  as  taking  possession  of  all  in  the  nat- 
ural man  that  is  lilted  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  consecrating  it  to  this 
end  ;  the  second — the  image  of  fire  is  introduced  on  account  of  its  contrariness  to  the 
water  of  baptism— inasmuch  as  consuming  everytlung  in  the  old  nature  that  is  out  of 
harmony  with  the  divine  kingdom,  and  destined  to  perish.  The  Spirit,  in  this  latter 
relation,  is  indeed  the  principle  of  judgment,  but  of  an  altogether  internal  judgment. 
It  is  the  fire  symbolized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  As  to  the  fire  of  ver.  17,  it  is 
expressly  opposed  to  that  of  ver.  IG  by  the  e])itliet  ua^haTov,  which  is  not  quenched. 
AVhnever  refuses  to  be  baptized  with  the  fire  of  holiness,  will  be  exposed  to  the  fire 
of  wrath.  Comp.  a  similar  transition,  but  in  an  inverse  sense,  Mark  9  :  48,  4!).  John 
liad  said,  sJiaU  b(ipfi-e  you  (ver.  10).  Since  thts  you  applied  solely  to  the  penitent  it 
contained  the  idea  of  a  sifting  process  going  on  among  the  people.  This  sifting  is 
described  in  the  seventeenth  verse.  The  tlireshmg-floor  among  the  ancients  was  an 
unovered  place,  where  the  corn,  spread  out  upon  the  hardened  ground,  was  trodden 
by  oxen,  which  were  sometimes  3'oked  to  a  sledge.  The  straw  was  burned  upon  the 
spot  ;  the  corn  was  gathered  into  the  garner.  This  garner,  in  .Tohn^  th/iughl,  re[)re- 
sents  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  Church  in  fact,  "the  earlieit^lilstorical  form  of  this 
kihgrtTTTn;  irrrirwhich  all  believing  Israelites  will  be  gathered.  Jewish  presumption 
made  the  line  of  demarcation  which  separates  the  elect  from  the  condemned  pass 
between  Israel  and  tlie  Gentiles  ;  John  makes  it  pass  ncrosti  the  theocracy  itself,  of 
which  the  threshing-fioor  is  the  symbol.  This  is  the  force  of  the  Jw  in  ihaKafjapiei. 
Jesus  expresses  Himself  in  exactly  the  same  sense,  John  3  :  18,  ei  seq.  The  judgment 
of  the  nation  and  of  the  individual  are  here  mingled  together,  as  in  ver.  9  ;  behind  the 
national  chastisement  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dispersion  of  the  people,  is 
placed  in  the  background  the  judgment  of  Individuals,  under  another  dispensation. 
Tlie  readings  (^inKuOdpai  and  awayaydv,  in  order  to  purifi/,  in  order  to  gather,  cannot 
be  admitted.  They  rather  weaken  the  force  of  this  striking  ])assage  ;  the  authority 
of  ».  B.  and  of  the  two  documents  of  the  Italic  are  not  sufficient  ;  lastly,  the  future 
KaruKamei,  which  must  be  in  opposition  to  a  preceding  future  (lU),  conies  in  too 
abruptly.  The  pronoun airoi).  twice  repeated  ver.  17 {Ilin  threshing-floor.  His  garner), 
leaves  no  doubt  about  the  divine  dignity  which  John  attributed  to  the  ^Messiah.  The 
theocracy  lielongs  to  Jehovah.     Comp.  the  expression,  7/w  temple,  'Ma].  8 :  1. 

4.  Vers.  18-20.*— We  find  here  one  of  those  general  surveys  such  as  we  have  in 
1  :  GO,  80  ;  2  :  40,  53.  For  the  third  time  the  lot  of  the  forerunner  becomes  the  pre- 
lude to  that  of  the  Saviour.     The  expression  miny  other  things  (ver.  18)  confirms  what 

*  Ver.  19.  The  T.  R.,  with  A.  C.  K.  X.  n.  many  Mnn.  Svr.,  adds,  before  rov 
ai^i:/<pov,  ^I'^i-mrov,  which  is  omitted  by  10  Mjj.  12U  Sinn.  It.  Vg.  (taken  from  Mat- 
thew).    Ver.  20.  !!t*  B.  D.  X.  It^'''^.  omit  nai  hcforc  TrijuaeOi/iu. 


116  COMMENTAUY    ON    ST.   LLlvE. 

was  already  inclicated  by  llie  impcrf.  lie  used  to  say  (ver.  7),  that  Luke  ouly  intencio  to 
give  a  summary  of  John's  preucliing.  The  term  lie  evangelized  (■x\\\.ern\  liuuslation) 
icfers  to  the  Messinuic  promises  which  his  discourses  contained  (vers.  IG  and  17),  iind 
the  tr\ie  transhitiou  of  this  verse  appears  to  me  to  be  this  :  "  while  addressin,<^  these 
and  many  oilier  exliorlalions  to  tlie  people,  he  announced  to  them  the  glad  tidings." 
Ver.  19.  Herod  Aniipas,  the  sovereign  of  Galilee,  is  the  person  already  mentioned 
in  ver.  1.  The  word  ^laIttixw,  rejected  by  important  autliorities,  is  probably  a  gloss 
derived  from  Matthew.  The  first  husband  of  Herodias  was  called  Herod.  He  lias 
no  other  name  in  Josephus.  He  lived  as  a  private  individual  at  Jerusalem.  But  per- 
haps he  also  bore  the  surname  of  Philip,  to  distinguish-  him  from  Herod  Antipas. 
The  brother  of  Aniipas,  who  was  properly  called  Philip,  is  the  tetrarch  of  Itursca 
(3  : 1).  The  ambitious  Herodias  had  abandoned  her  husband  to  marry  Antipas,  who 
for  love  of  her  sent  away  his  first  wife,  a  daughter  of  Arelas  king  of  Arabia  ;  this  act 
drew  him  into  a  disastrous  war. 

Luke's  expression  indicates  concentrated  indignation.  In  order  to  express  the 
energy  of  the  f t(  izuaiv,  we  miist  say  ;  to  crown  all  .  .  .  The  form  of  the  phrase 
npoasQrjKE  Kal  KaTCK/.eiaE  is  based  on  a  well-known  Hebraism,  and  proves  that  this  nar- 
rative of  Luke's  is  derived  from  an  Aramaean  document.  Tliis  passage  furnishes 
another  proof  that  Luke  draws  upon  an  independent  source  ;  he  separates  himself,  in 
fact,  from  the  two  other  synoptics,  by  mentioning  the  impiisourncnt  of  John  the 
Baptist  here,  instead  of  referring  it  to  a  later  period,  as  Matthew  and  Mark  do,  syn- 
chronizing it  with  the  return  of  Jesus  into  Galilee  after  His  baptism  (Matt.  4  :  12  ; 
Mark  1  :  14).  He  thereby  avoids  the  chronological  error  committed  by  the  two  other 
ISyn.,  and  rectified  by  John  Qi  :  24).  This  notice  is  brought  in  here  by  anticipation, 
as  the  similar  notices,  1  :  666  and  805.  It  is  intended  to  exphiin  the  sudden  end  of 
John's  ministry,  and  serves  as  a  stepping-stone  to  the  narrative  7  :  18,  where  John 
sends  from  his  prison  two  of  his  disciples  to  Jesus. 

The  fact  of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  is  authenticated  by  the  narrative  of 
Jnseplius.  This  historian  speaks  of  it  at  some  length  wlien  describing  tlie  marriage 
of  Herod  Aiilipaa  with.  Herodias.  After  relating  the  defeat  of  Herod's  army  by 
Aretas,  tlie  father  of  his  fi/st  wife,  Josephus  (Anliri.  xviii.  5.  1.  2)  coulimies  thus: 
"  This  disaster  was  attributed  by  man}'  of  the  Jews  to  the  displeasure  of  God,  wiio 
smote  Herod  for  the  murder  of  John,  surnamed  the  Baptist;  for  Herod  had  put  to 
death  tliis  good  man,  who  exhorted  tlie  Jews  to  the  piacli(;e  of  virtue,  inviting  them 
l'>  come  to  liis  baptism,  and  bidding  tiiem  act  with  justice  toward  each  otlier,  and 
with  piety  toward  God  ;  for  their  baptism  would  please  God  if  ihey  did  not  use  it  to 
justify  themselves  from  any  sin  they  had  (committed,  but  to  obtain  purity  of  body 
after  their  souls  had  l,een  previously  purified  i)y  rigliteousness.  And  when  a  great 
niuMitude  of  peo])le  came  to  him,  and  weie  deeplv  moved  by  his  discourses,  Herod, 
fearing  lest  he  might  use  his  iufiuence  to  urge  tliein  to  revolt — for  he  well  knew  that 
tiiey  would  do  whatever  he  advised  thera-^thouglit  that  the  liest  course  for  him  to 
take  was  to  put  him  to  death  before  he  attempted  anything  of  the  kind.  So  he  put 
him  in  chains,  and  sent  him  to  the  castle  of  Machaerus,  and  there  put  him  to  death. 
The  .Jews,  therefote,  were  convinced  that  his  army  was  destroyed  as  a  punishment 
for  this  murder,  God  being  incensed  against  Herod."  Tiiis  account,  while  altogether 
independent  of  the  evangelist's,  confirms  it  in  all  the  essential  pr)ints  :  the  extraor- 
dinary appearance  of  this  person  of  such  remarkable  sanctity  ;  the  rite  of  baptism 
introduced  by  him;  his  surname,  the  Bapiid ;  John's  protest  against  the  use  of 
baptism  as  a  mere  opus  operatnm ;  liis  energetic  exhortations;  the  general  excite- 
ment ;  the  imprisonment  and  murder  of  John  ;  and  further,  the  criminal  marriage  of 
Herod,  related  in  what  precedes.  By  the  side  of  these  essential. jxiinls,  common  to 
the  two  narratives,  there  are  some  secoudary  differences  :  "  First.  Josephus  makes  no 


CHAP.   III.  :  21,  23.  117 

monliin  of  tlie  Messianic  element  in  the  preacliini^  of  John.  But  in  this  tlierc  is 
nolliiiig  surp-ising.  This  silence  proceetls  from  liie  same  cause  as  that  which  he  ob- 
serves respecting  tiie  person  of  Jesus.  He  wlio  could  allow  himself  to  apply  the 
Mes-iianic  prophecies  to  Vespasian,  would  necessarily  try  to  avoid  everything  iu  con- 
temp  >raneous  history  that  had  reference  either  to  the  forerunner,  as  suc'h,  or  to  Jesus. 
Wei/,«:ilcker  riglitly  observes  that  the  narrative  of  Joscphus,  so  far  from  invalidating 
ihU  of  Lulve  on  this  point,  contiimsit.  For  it  is  evident  that  apart  from  its  con- 
nection with  the  expectalion  of  the  ^Messiah,  the  baptism  of  John  would  not  have 
produced  that  general  excitement  which  excited  tlie  fears  of  Herod,  aud  which  is 
proved  by  the  account  of  Jo.sephus.  Second.  According  to  Luke,  the  determining 
cau-ie  of  John's  imprisr)nmcnt  was  the  resentment  of  Herod  at  the  rebukes  of  the 
Haptist  ;  while,  according  to  Josephua,  the  mi)live  for  this  crime  was  the  fear  of  a 
l))lilical  outbreak.  But  it  is  easy  to  conceive  that  llie  cause  indicated  by  Luke  would 
not  1)0  openly  avowed,  and  that  it  was  unknown  in  the  political  circles  wiiere  Jose- 
p  lus  gathered  his  iuformalioa.  Herod  and  Ids  counsellors  i)ut  forward,  as  is  usual 
in  such  cases,  the  reason  of  state.  The  previous  revolts — tlioso  which  imraedialely 
followed  the  death  of  Herol,  and  that  which  Judas  the  Gaulonite  provoked — only 
justified  to)  well  the  fears  which  thef  affecicd  to  feel,  in  any  case,  if,  on  account  of 
this  general  agreement,  we  were  willing  to  admit  that  one  of  the  two  historians  made 
u-*8  of  the  other,  it  is  not  Luke  that  we  should  legaid  as  the  copyist  ;  for  the 
AramiBiu  forms  of  his  narrative  iutlicate  a  source  independent  of  that  of  .Tosephus. 

The  higher  origin  of  this  ministry  of  J.)hn  is  proved  by  the  two  following  cliarac- 
terislics,  whicli  are  inexplicable  from  a  purely  natural  point  of  view  :  First,  His  con- 
nection s")  eiuphal.ically  announced,  with  the  immediate  appearance  of  the  ^Messiah  ; 
se,'->a'.l,  The  abdication  of  John,  when  at  the  height  of  his  popularity,  in  favor  of  the 
poor  (r.ililean,  who  was  as  yet  unknown  to  all.  As  to  the  oiiginality  of  John's 
bvplism,  the  lustrations  used  in  the  oriental  religions,  in  Judaism  itself,  and  partic- 
ularly among  the  Essenes,  have  been  alleged  against  it.  But  tiiis  originality  con- 
sisle  i  ie>.^  In  the  outward  form  of  the  rite,  than — 1.  In  its  application  to  liie  whole 
people,  thus  prjuouncid  deliled,  and  placed  on  a  level  willi  llie  heathen  ;  and  3.  In 
tlie  prepiratorv  reliili.)n  <'Stablislicd  by  the  forerunner  between  this  imperfect  baptism 
auil  thai  tin  il  baptism  which  the  Messiah  was  about  to  confer. 

W"e  think  it  useful  t  )  give  an  example  here  of  the  way  in  which  Hollzmann  tries 
to  e  cplain  the  oomp.)silijn  of  our  Gospel  : 

1.  Vers,  l-l)  are  borrowed  from  stmrce  A.  (the  original  IMark)  ;  only  Luke  leaves 
out  the  details  respecting  the  ascetic  life  of  John  the  Baptist,  because  he  intends  to 
give  his  discourses  at  greater  length  ;  he  compensates  for  this  omission  by  adding  the 
chronological  data  (vers.  1  .and  2),  and  by  extending  the  (juotalion  from  the  LXX. 
(vers.  5  and  G)  !  3.  Vers.  7-9  are  also  taken  from  A.,  just  as  are  the  parallel  verses 
iu  Mattiiew  ;  tlujy  were  left  out  by  the  author  of  our  canonical  ]\laik.  whose  inten- 
tion was  to  give  only  an  abdridgment  of  the  discourses,  8.  Vers.  10-14  are  taken 
from  a  i»rivate  source,  peculiar  to  Luke,  Are  we  then  to  suppose  that  this  source 
contained  only  tlie.se  four  verses,  since  Luke  has  depended  on  other  sources  for  all  the 
rest  of  his  milter?  4.  Vers.  15-17  are  compo.sed  («)  of  a  sketch  of  Luke's  invention 
(ver.  lo)  ;  {'j)  of  an  extract  from  A.,  vers.  16,  17.  5.  Vers.  18-20  have  been  compiled 
on  the  basis  of  a  fragment  of  A  ,  which  is  found  in  .Maik  fi  :  17-20,  a  snnimaiy  of 
which  Luke  thought  should  be  introduced  here.  Do  we  not  thus  fall  into  that  pro- 
cess of  manufacture  which  Schleiermacher  ridiculed  so  hap[)ily  in  his  work  on  the 
composition  of  Luke,  a  propoi  of  Eichhorn's  hypothesis,  a  method  which  we  Ihouglit 
had  disappeared  from  criticism  for  ever  ? 

SECOND  NAKRATITE. — CHAP.   3  ;  21,  22. 

The  Baptium  of  Jesus. 

The  rel'i.tion  between  John  and  Jesus,  as  described  by  St.  Luke,  resembles  that  of 
two  stars  following  each  other  at  a  short  distance,  and  both  passing  tlirongh  a  series 
of  similar  circumstances.  The  announcement  of  the  appearing  of  the  one  follows  clo.se 
upon  that  of  the  appearing  of  the  other.     It  is  the  same  with  their  two  births.     This 


118  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

relatioa  repeats  itself  in  the  commeuceraent  of  their  respective  ministries  ;  and  lastly, 
in  the  catastrophes  which  terniiuate  their  lives.  And  yet,  in  the  wlioJe  course  of  the 
career  of  these  two  men,  there  was  but  one  personal  meeting --at  the  baptism  of  Jesus. 
After  this  moment,  when  one  of  these  stars  rapidly  crossed  the  orbit  of  the  other, 
they  separated,  each  to  follow  the  path  that  was  marked  out  for  him.  It  is  this 
moment  of  tiieir  actual  contact  that  tbe  evangelist  is  about  to  describe. 

Vers.  21  and  22.*  This  narralive  of  the  baptism  is  the  sequel,  not  to  vers.  18,  19 
(the  imprisonment  of  John),  which  are  an  anticipation,  but  to  the  ])assagc,  vers.  15-17, 
which  describes  the  expeclalion  of  the  people,  and  relates  the  Messianic  prophecy  of 
John.  The  expression  u-av-a  ibv  /.aov,  all  the  people,  ver.  21,  recalls  the  crowds 
and  popular  feeling  described  in  ver.  15.  But  Meyer  is  evidently  wrong  in  sefeing  in 
these  words,  "  When  all  the  people  were  baptized,"  a  proof  that  all  this  crowd  was 
present  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  term  all  the  people,  in  such  a  connection,  would 
he  a  strange  exaggeration.  Luke  merely  means  to  indicate  the  general  agreement  in 
time  between  this  movement  and  the  baptism  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  expression  he  uses 
need  not  in  anyway  prevent  our  thinking  that  Jesus  was  alone,  or  almost  alone,  with 
the  forerunner,  when  the  latter  baptized  Him.  Further,  it  is  highly  probable  that  He 
would  choose  a  time  when  the  transaction  might  lake  place  in  this  manner.  But 
the  turn  of  exi^ression,  ev  rcj  ffa-nTLa^Ji'ivaL,  expresses  more  than  the  simultaneous- 
ness  of  the  two  facts  ;  it  places  them  in  moral  connection  with  each  other.  In  being 
baptized,  Jesus  surrenders  Himself  to  the  movement  which  at  this  time  was  drawing 
all  the  people  toward  God.  Had  lie  acted  otherwise,  would  lie  not  have  broken  the 
bond  of  solidarity  which  He  had  contracted,  by  circumcision,  with  Israel,  and  by  the 
incarnation,  with  all  mankind  V  So  far  from  being  relaxed,  this  bond  is  to  be  drawn 
closer,  until  at  last  it  involve  Him  who  has  entered  into  it  in  the  full  participation  of 
our  condenmation  and  death.  This  relation  of  the  baptism  of  the  nation  to  that  of 
Jesus  explains  also  the  singular  turn  of  expression  which  Luke  makes  use  of  in  men- 
tioning the  fact  cf  the  baptism.  This  act,  which  one  would  have  thought  would 
have  been  the  very  pith  of  the  narrative,  is  indicated  by  means  of  a  simple  participle, 
and  in  quite  an  incidental  way  :  "  When  all  tiie  people  were  baptized,  Jesus  also  be- 
ing biiplized,  and  praying  .  ..."  Luke  appears  to  mean  that,  granted  the  national 
baptism,  that  of  Jesus  follows  as  a  matter  of  course.  It  is  the  moral  consequence  of 
the  former.  This  turn  of  thought  is  not  without  its  importance  in  explaining  the  fact 
which  we  are  now  considering.  Luke  adds  here  a  detail  which  is  peculiar  to  him, 
and  which  serves  to  place  the  miraculous  phenomena  which  tolli)win  their  true  light. 
At  the  lime  when  Jesus,  having  been  baptized,  went  up  out  of  tlie  water,  He  was  in 
prayer.  The  extraordinary  manifestations  about  to  be  related  thus  become  God's 
answer  to  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  in  which  the  sighs  of  His  people  and  of  mankind  found 
utterance.  The  earth  is  thirsty  for  the  rain  of  heaven.  The  Spirit  will  descend  on 
Him  who  knows  how  to  ask  it  effectually  ;  and  it  will  be  His  office  to  impart  it  to  all 
the  vest.  If,  afterward,  we  hear  Him  sa^dng  (11  :  9),  "Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given 
you  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  to  you,"  we  know  from 
what  personal  experience  He  derived  this  precept  :  at  the  Jordan  He  Himself  first 
asked  and  received,  sought  and  found,  knocked  and  it  was  opened  to  Ili:n. 

The  heavenly  manifestation.     Luke  assigns  these  miiacidous  facts  to  the  domain 

*  Ver.  22.  iS.  B.  D.  L.,  wc  instead  of  uau.  ^.  B.  D.  L.  Itpi"iq"«,  omit  leyovoav. 
D.  It*"''.  Justin,  and  some  other  Fathers,  read,  ftof  nov  ei  av,  eyu  oTijxepov  yeyewrjKa 
as,  tv  avi,  etc. 


OflAl'.    J II.  :'^1,2'Z.  110 

of  objective  reality  :  iJie  Jicairiis  opened,  ihe  Spirit  descended.  !Mark  makes  tlicm  a 
personal  intuition  of  Jesus  :*  "  And  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  lie  saw  tlie  ]i(;avens 
opened,  and  the  Spirit  descending"  (1  :  10).  Matthew  corresponds  -wilh  Mark  ;  for 
Bleeiv  is  altogether  wrong  ia  maintaining  that  this  evangelist  makes  the  whole  scene  a 
vision  of  John  the  Baptist.  The  text  does  not  allow  of  the  two  verbs,  IJe  went  tip 
and  Jle  mir,  which  toiiow  each  other  so  closely  (Malt.  3  :  1(1),  having  two  dilTerent, 
subjects.  Bleek  alleges  the  narrative  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  where  also  the  foierun- 
ner  speaks  merely  of  what  Iw.  saw  hiiaself.  But  that  is  natural  ;  for  in  that  iia:?:sfigu 
his  object  was,  not  to  relate  the  fact,  but  siinply  to  justify  the  testimony  wiiicli  he 
had  just  borne.  For  this  purpose  he  could  only  mention  what  he  had  seen  /ui/imIj. 
No  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  as  to  the  fact  itself,  and  ils  relation  to  Jesus, 
the  other  witness.  Speaking  generally,  the  scene  of  the  baptism  dues  not  fail  within 
the  horizon  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  starts  from  a  point  of  time  six  weeks  after 
this  event  took  place,  Keim  has  no  better  ground  thau  this  for  asserting  that  the 
accounts  of  the  Syn.  on  this  subject  are  contradictory  to  that  of  John,  because  the 
former  attribute  an  external  reality  to  these  miraculous  phenomena,  while  the  latter 
treats  them  as  a  simple  vision  of  the  forerunner,  and  even,  according  to  him,  excludes 
the  realit}'  of  the  baptism. f  The  true  relation  of  these  accounts  to  each  other  is  this  : 
According  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  John  saw  ;  according  to  the  first  and  second,  Jesus 
saw.  Now,  as  tw-o  persons  can  hardly  be  under  an  hallucination  at  the  same  time 
and  in  the  same  manner,  this  double  perception  supposes  a  reality,  and  this  reality  is 
aflirmed  by  Luke  :  And  it  ainie  to  pass,  that     . 

Tiie  divine  inauifestation  comi)ri.s(s  three  internal  facts,  and  three  corresponding 
sensible  phenomena.  The  thice  former  are  the  divine  communication  itself  ;  tiie 
three  latter  are  the  manifestation  of  this  communication  to  the  consciousness  of  Jesus 
and  of  J(din.  Jesus  was  a  true  man,  consisting,  that  is,  at  once  of  body  and  soul. 
In  order,  therefoie,  to  take  complete  possession  of  Him,  God  had  to  speak  at  once  to 
His  outward  and  inward  sense.  As  to  John,  he  shared,  as  an  official  Avilness  of  the 
spiiitual  fact,  the  sensible  impression  which  accompanied  this  comrauuicatiou  from  on 
high  to  the  mind  of  Jesus.  The  first  phenomenon  is  the  opening  oftlie  heavens.  While 
Jesus  is  praying,  with  His  ej'es  fixed  on  high,  the  vault  of  heaven  is  rent  befoie  His 
gaze,  and  His  glance  penetrates  the  abode  of  eternal  light.  The  spiritual  fact  con- 
tained under  this  sensible  phenomenon  is  the  ])erfect  understanding  accorded  to  Jesus 
of  God's  plan  in  the  work  of  salvation.  The  treasures  of  divine  wisdom  are  oj^ened 
to  Him,  and  He  may  thenceforth  obtain  at  any  hour  the  particular  enlightenment  He 
may  need.  The  meaning  of  this  first  phenomenon  is  therefore  perfect  revelation. 
From  the  measureless  heights  of  heaven  above,  thus  laid  open  to  His  gaze,  Jesus 
s,^cn(lniCitn([  a  luminous  apjwar  a  nee,  having  the  form  of  a  dove.  This  emblem  is  taken 
from  a  natural  symbolism.  The  fertilizing  and  persevering  incul)ation  of  the  dove 
is  an  admu-able  type  of  the  life  giving  energy  whereby  the  Holy  Spirit  develops  in 
the  human  soul  the  germs  of  anew  life.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  new  crealiim. 
deposited  with  all  its  powers  in  the  soul  of  Jesus,  is  to  extend  itself  around  Him, 
under  the  inlluence  of  this  creative  principle  (Gen.  1  :  2).  By  the  organic  form 
wliich  invests  the  luminous  ray,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  here  presented  in  its  absolute 
totality.     At  Pentecost  the  Holy  Spirit  appears  under  the  form  of  tZmVfcf?  (Jto/zfptfo- 

*  For  the  meaninir  of  the  author  in  this  seutcnce,  see  the  close  of  tile  paragraph. 
By  itself  it  might  be  misunderstood. — J.  U. 
f  "  Gcsch.  Jesu,"  t.  i.  p.  535. 


120  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.    LL'KE. 

fievai)  tongues  of  fire,  emblems  of  special  gifts,  of  particular  x^P'^ufiTn,  shared 
among  the  disciples.  But  in  the  baptism  of  .Icsus  it  is  not  a  portion  only,  it  is  the 
fulness  of  the  Spirit  which  is  given.  This  idea  could  only  be  expressed  by  a  symbol 
taken  from  organic  life.  John  the  Baptist  understood  this  emblem  :  "  For  G;.d  giveth 
nut,"  he  says  (John  3  :  34),  "  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  Rim."  The  vibration  of  the 
luminous  ray  on  the  head  of  Jesus,  like  the  fluttering  of  the  wings  of  a  dove,  denotes 
the  permanence  of  the  gift.  "I  saw,"  says  John  the  Baptist  (John  1  :  32),  "the 
Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  Ilim."  This  luminous 
appearance,  then,  represents  an  inspiration  wdiich  is  neither  partial  as  that  of  tlie 
faithful,  nor  intermittent  as  that  of  the  prophets — perfect  inspiration.  The  third 
phenomenon,  that  of  the  divine  voice,  represents  a  still  more  intimate  and  personal 
communication.  Nothing  is  a  more  direct  emanation  from  the  personal  life  than 
speech,  the  voice.  The  voice  of  God  resounds  in  the  ear  and  heai  t  of  Jesus,  and 
reveals  to  Him  all  that  He  is  to  God — the  Being  most  tenderly  beloved,  beloved  as  a 
father's  only  son  ;  and  consequently^  all  that  He  is  called  to  be  to  the  world— the  organ 
of  divine  love  to  men.  He  whose  mission  it  is  to  raise  His  brethren  to  the  dignity  of 
sons.  According  to  Luke,  and  probal)ly  Mark  also  (in  conformity  with  the  reading 
admitted  by  Tischendorf),  the  divine  declaration  is  addressed  ^o  Jesus  :  "  I'hou  art 
my  Son  .  .  .  ;  in  T/tee  I  am  .  .  ."  In  Matthew  it  has  the  form  of  a  testimony 
addressed  to  a  third  party  touching  Jesus  :  "  This  is  my  Son  .  .  .  in  whom 
.  .  ."  The  first  form  is  that  in  which  God  spoke  to  Jesus  ;  the  second,  that  in 
which  John  became  conscious  of  the  divine  manifestation.  This  difference  attests 
that  the  two  accounts  are  derived  from  different  sources,  and  that  the  writings  in 
which  they  are  preserved  are  independent  of  each  other.  What  writer  would  have 
deliberately  changed  the  form  of  a  saying  which  he  attributed  to  God  Himself  ?  The 
pronoun  oo,  Thou,  as  well  as  the  predicate  ayaTrijroi,  with  the  article,  the  well- 
beloved,  invest  this  filial  relation  with  a  character  that  is  altogether  unique;  comp. 
10  :22.  From  this  moment  Jesus  must  have  felt  Himself  the  .supreme  object  of  the 
love  of  the  infinite  God.  The  unspeakable  blessedness  with  which  such  an  assurance 
could  not  fail  to  fill  Him  was  the  source  of  the  witness  He  bore  concerning  Himself 
— a  witness  borne  not  for  His  own  glory,  but  with  a  view  to  reveal  to  the  world  the 
love  wherewith  God  loves  those  to  whom  He  imparts  such  a  gift.  From  this  moment 
dates  the  birth  of  that  unique  consciousness  Jesus  had  of  God  as  His  own  Father — the 
rising  of  that  radiant  sun  which  henceforth  illuminates  His  life,  and  which  since 
Pentecost  has  risen  upon  mankind.  Just  as,  by  the  instrumentality  of  His  Word  and 
Spirit,  God  communicates  to  believers,  wiien  the  hour  has  come,  the  certainty  of 
their  adoption,  so  answering  both  inwardly  and  outwardly  the  praj'er  of  Jesus,  He 
raises  Him  in  His  human  consciousness  to  a  sense  of  His  dignity  as  the  onlj'^-begottea 
Son.  It  is  on  the  strength  of  this  revelation  that  John,  who  shared  it,  says  after- 
ward, "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son.  and  hath  given  all  things  into  His  hands"  (John 
3  :  25).  The  absence  of  the  title  Christ  in  the  divine  salutation  is  remarkable.  We 
see  that  the  principal  fact  in  the  development  of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  was  not 
the  feeling  of  His  Messianic  dignity,  but  of  His  close  and  personal  relation  with  God 
(comp.  already  2  :49),  and  of  His  divine  origin.  On  that  alone  was  based  His  con- 
viction of  His  Messianic  mission.  The  religious  fact  was  fir.'^t ;  the  official  part  was 
only  its  corollary.  M.  Renan  has  reversed  this  relation,  and  it  is  the  capital  defect  of 
his  work.  The  quotation  of  the  words  of  Ps.  2.  "  To-day  have  I  begotten,  Thee," 
which  Justin  introduces  into  the  divine  salutation,  is  only  supported  by  D.  and  some 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    JESUS.  121 

Mss.  of  the  Italic.  It  contrasts  -wilh  the  simplicity  of  the  narrative.  God  does  not 
((uole  Himself  textuully  in  this  way  !  The  C<tn(abrif/iennis  swarms  with  similar 
interpolaliuus  which  have  not  the  sliglitest  critical  value.  It  is  easy  to  understand 
bow  this  quotation,  attixed  at  an  early  period  as  a  marginal  gloss,  should  have  found 
its  way  into  the  text  of  some  documents  ;  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  account  for  its 
suppression  in  such  a  large  number  of  others,  had  it  originally  formed  part  of  the 
text.  Justin  furnishes,  besides,  in  this  veiy  narrative  of  the  baptism,  several  apoc- 
ryphtil  adtlilious. 

By  means  of  a  perfect  revelation,  Jesus  contemplates  the  plan  of  God.  Peifect 
inspiration  gives  Him  strength  to  realize  it.  From  tlie  consciousness  of  Ilis  dignity 
as  Sou  He  derives  the  assurance  of  His  being  the  supreme  ambassador  of  God,  called 
to  accomplish  this  task.    These  were  the  positive  conditions  of  His  ministry. 

THE  BAPTISM  OP  JESUS, 

We  shall  examine— l.C  The  baptism  itself  ;  2d.  The  marvellous  circumstances 
which  accompanied  it  ;  'Sd.  The  different  accounts  of  this  fact. 

1st.  The  Meaning  of  the  Baptism. — Here  two  closely  connected  questions  present 
themselves:  What  was  the  object  of  Jesus  in  seeking  baptism  ?  What  took  place 
within  Him  when  the  rite  was  performed  '? 

To  the  former  question  Strauss  boldly  replies  :  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  an 
avowal  on  His  part  of  defilement,  and  a  means  of  obtaining  divine  pardon.  This 
explanation  contradicts  all  the  declarations  of  Jesus  respecting  Himself.  If  there  is 
any  one  feature  that  marks  His  life,  and  completely  separates  it  from  all  others,  it  is 
the  entire  absence  of  remorse  and  of  the  need  of  personal  forgiveness.  According  to 
Schleiermacher,  Jesus  desired  to  indorse  the  preaching  of  John,  and  obtain  from  him 
consecration  to  His  Messianic  ministry.  But  there  had  been  no  relation  indicated 
beforehand  betv\-een  the  baptism  of  water  and  the  mission  of  the  Messiah,  nor  was 
any  such  kuort'n  to  the  people  ;  and  since  baptism  was  generallj'  understood  as  a  con- 
fession of  detilement,  it  would  rather  appear  incompatil)le  wilh  this  supreme  theo- 
cratic dignity.  Weizsiicker,  Keim,  and  others  see  iu  it  a  personal  engagement  on  the 
part  of  Jesus  to  cousecrale  Himself  to  the  service  of  holiness.  This  is  just  the  pre- 
vious opinion  shorn  of  the  3Iessianic  notion,  since  these  writers  shrink  from  attribut- 
ing to  Jesus  thus  carl}',  a  fixed  idea  of  His  Messianic  dignity.  It  is  certain  that  bap- 
tism was  a  vow  of  moral  purity  on  the  part  ot  him  who  submitted  to  it.  But  the 
form  of  the  rite  implies  not  only  the  notion  of  progress  iu  holiness,  but  also  that  of 
the  removal  of  actual  detilement  ;  which  is  incom|)atible  with  the  idea  which  these 
authors  have  themselves  formed  of  the  person  of  Jesus.  Lange  sees  in  this  act  the 
indication  of  Jesus'  guiltless  participatioQ  in  the  collective  defilement  of  mankind,  by 
vi:tue  of  the  soliilarity  of  the  race,  and  a  voluntary  engagement  to  deliver  Himself 
up  to  death  for  the  .salvation  of  the  world.  This  idea  contains  substantially  the  truth. 
We  would  express  it  thus  :  In  presenting  Himself  for  baptism,  Jesus  had  to  make,  as 
others  did.  His  iioun'koyjjniq.  His  confession  of  sins.*  Of  what  sins,  if  not  of 
those  of  Ilis  people  and  of  the  world  in  general  ?  He  placed  before  John  a  striking 
picture  of  them,  not  with  that  pride  and  scorn  with  which  the  Jews  spoke  of  the  sins 

*  Matthew  (:3  :  0)  and  Mark  (1:7):  "  And  they  were  b'ii)tized  by  him  in  Jordan, 

confessing]  t/icir  sins. ' ' 


123  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

of  the  lieatlien,  and  the  Pharisees  of  the  sins  of  the  publicans,  but  with  the  humble 
and  compassionate  tones  of  an  Isaiah  (chap.  63),  a  Daniel  (chap.  9),  or  a  Nehe- 
miah  (chap.  9,  when  they  confessed  the  miseiies  of  their  people,  as  if  the  burden 
were  their  own.  He  could  not  have  gone  down  into  the  water  after  such  an  act  of 
communion  with  our  misery,  unless  resolved  to  give  Himself  up  entirely  to  the  work 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  reign  of  sin.  But  He  did  not  content  Himself  with  making 
a  vow.  He  -prayed,  the  text  tells  us  ;  He  besought  God  for  all  that  He  needed  for  the 
accomplishment  of  this  great  task,  to  take  away  the  sin  of  tJie  world.  He  asked  for 
wisdom,  for  spiritual  strength,  and  panicularly  for  the  solution  of  the  mystery  which 
famdy  records,  the  Scriptures,  and  His  own  holiness  had  created  about  His  person. 
"We  can  understand  how  John,  after  hearing  Him  confess  and  fray  thus,  should  say, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  !"  This  is  what 
.Tesus  did  by  presenting  Himself  for  baptism. 

What  took  place  within  Him  during  the  performance  of  the  rite  ?  According  to 
Schleiermacher,  nothing  at  all.  He  knew  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  and,  by  virtue 
of  His  previous  development,  He  alread}'  possessed  every  qualification  for  His  work. 
John,  His  forerunner,  was  merely  apprised  of  his  vocation,  and  rendered  capable  of 
proclaiming  it.  Weizsiicker,  Keim,  and  others  admit  something  more.  Jesus  became 
at  this  time  conscious  of  His  redemptive  mission.  It  was  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan 
that  the  grand  resolve  was  formed  ;  there  Jesus  felt  Himself  at  once  the  man  of  God 
and  the  man  of  His  age  ;  there  John  silent l}"^  shared  in  His  solemn  vow  ;  and  there 
the  "  God  wills  it"  sounded  through  these  two  elect  souls.*  Lastly,  Gess  and  several 
others  think  they  must  admit,  besides  a  communication  of  strength  from  above,  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  solely  as  a  spirit  of  ministry,  in  view  of  the  charge  He  was 
about  to  fulfil.  TliGse  ideas,  although  just,  are  insufficient,.  The  texts  are  clear.  If 
Jesus  was  rerealed  to  John,  it  was  because  He  was  revealed  to  Himself  ;  and  this 
revelation  could  not  have  taken  place  without  being  accompanied  by  a  new  gift. 
This  gift  could  not  refer  to  His  work  simply  ;  for  in  an  existence  such  as  His,  in 
which  all  was  spirit  and  life,  it  was  impossible  to  make  a  mechanical  separation  be- 
tween work  and  life.  The  exercise  of  the  functions  of  His  office  was  an  emanation 
from  His  life,  and  in  some  respects  the  atmosphere  of  His  very  personality.  His 
entrance  upon  the  duties  of  His  otfice  must  therefore  have  coincided  with  an  advance 
in  the  development  of  His  personal  life.  Does  not  the  power  of  giving  imply  pos- 
session in  a  different  sense  from  that  which  holds  when  this  power  is  as  yet  unexer- 
cised ?  Further,  our  documents,  accepting  the  humanity  of  Jesus  more  thoroughly 
than  our  boldest  theologians,  overstep  the  bounds  at  which  they  stop.  According  to 
them,  .Jesus  really  received,  not  certainly  as  Cerinthus,  going  beyond  the  limits  of 
truth,  taught,  a  heavenly  Christ  who  came  and  united  Himself  to  him  for  a  lime,  but 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  full  meaning  of  the  term,  by  which  Jesus  became  the  Lord's 
anointed,  the  Christ,  the  perfect  man,  the  second  Adam,  capable  of  begetting  a  new 
spiritual  humanity.  This  spirit  no  longer  acted  on  Him  simply,  on  His  will,  as  it  had 
done  from  the  beginning  ;  it  l)ecfime  His  proper  nature,  His  personal  life.  No  men- 
tion is  ever  made  of  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  Jesus  during  the  course  of  His 
ministry.  Jesus  was  more  and  better  than  inspired.  Through  the  spirit  whose  life 
became  His  life,  Ged  was  in  Him.  and  He  in  God.  In  order  to  His  being  completely 
glorified  as  man,  there  remained  but  one  thing  more,  that  His  earthly  existence  be 

*  See  the  fine  passage  in  Keim's  "  Gesch.  Jesu,"  t.  i.  pp.  543-549. 


TIIH    I!A1''1'1SM    OF    .IKSL'S.  123 

transformed  into  the  divine  state.  Ills  transfiguration  was  the  preliule  to  tliis  irans- 
fornuilion.  In  the  developmunt  of  Jesus,  tlie  baptism  is  therelorc  llie  iuternicdiate 
point  bohveen  llie  miraculous  birtii  and  the  ascension. 

But  objections  are  raised  against  this  l)iblical  notion  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  Xeim 
maintains  that,  since  Jesus  already  possessed  the  Spirit  tiirough  the  divine  iutUienoe 
which  sanctified  His  birth,  He  could  not  receive  it  in  His  baptism.  But  would  he 
deny  that,  if  there  is  one  act  in  human  life  which  is  free,  it  is  the  acquisition  of  the 
Spirit  ?  The  Spirit's  iutluence  is  too  much  of  the  nature  of  fellowship  to  force  iiself 
on  any  one.  It  must  be  desired  and  sought  in  order  to  be  received  ;  and  for  it  to  be 
desired  and  sought,  it  must  be  in  some  measure  known.  Jesus  declares  (John  14  :  17), 
"  that  the  world  ranuot  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  it  seeth  Plim  not,  neither 
knowetliHim."  The  possession  of  the  Spirit  cannot  therefore  be  the  starting-point 
of  moral  life  ;  it  can  only  be  the  term  of  a  more  or  less  lengthened  development  of 
the  soul's  life.  The  human  soul  was  created  as  the  betrothed  of  the  S[)irit  ;  and  for 
the  marriage  to  be  consummated,  the  soul  must  have  beheld  her  heavenly  spouse,  and 
learned  to  love  Him  and  accept  Him  freely.  This  state  of  energetic  and  active  recep- 
tivity, the  condition  of  every  Pentecost,  was  that  of  Jesus  at  His  baptism.  It  was 
the  fruit  of  His  previous  pure  development,  which  had  simply  been  rantXavail  pomble 
by  the  interposition  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  His  birth  (p.  58). 

Again,  it  is  said  that  it  lessens  the  moral  greatness  of  Jesus  to  substitute  a  sudden 
and  magical  illumination,  like  that  of  the  baptism,  for  that  free  acriuisition  of  the 
Spirit— that  spontaneous  discovery  and  conquest  of  self  which  are  due  solely  to  per- 
sonal endeavor.  But  when  God  gives  a  soul  the  inward  assurance  of  adoption,  and 
reveals  to  it,  as  to  Jesus  at  His  baptism,  the  love  He  has  for  it,  does  this  gift  exclude 
previous  endeavor,  moral  struggles,  even  anguish  often  bordering  on  despair  ?  No  ; 
so  far  from  grace  excluding  human  preparatory  labor,  it  would  remain  barren  with- 
out it,  just  as  the  human  labor  would  issue  in  nothing  apart  from  the  divme  gift. 
Every  schoolmaster  has  observed  marked  stages  in  the  development  of  children — 
crises  in  which  past  growth  has  found  an  end,  and  from  which  an  entirely  new  era 
has  taken  its  date.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  out  of  harmony  with  the  laws  of 
psychology  in  this  ajiparenlly  abrupt  leap  which  the  baptism  makes  in  the  life  of 
Jesus. 

2d.  The  Miraculous  Ci)'cumst(incc?.. — Keim  denies  them  altogethsr.  Everything  in 
the  baptism,  according  to  him,  resolves  itself  into  a  heroic  decision  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  to  undertake  the  salvation  of  tiie  world.  He  alleges  :  1.  The  numerous  differ- 
ences between  the  narratives,  i)artieularly  between  that  of  John  and  these  of  the 
Syn.  This  objection  rests  on  misapprehensions  (see  above).  2.  The  legendary  char- 
acter of  the  prodigies  related.  But  here  one  of  two  things  must  be  true.  Either  our 
narratives  of  the  baptism  are  the  reproduction  of  the  original  evangelical  tradition 
circulated  by  the  apostles  (1  :2),  and  repeated  during  many  years  under  their  eyes  ; 
and  in  this  case,  how  could  they  contain  statements  positively  false?  Or  these 
accounts  are  legends  of  later  invention  ;  but  if  so,  how  is  their  all  but  literal  agree- 
ment to  be  accounted  for,  and  the  weil-defined  and  fixed  type  which  thej'  exhibit? 
3.  The  mternal  struggles  of  Jesus  and  the  doid)ts  of  Joiin  the  Baptist,  mcntioiied  in 
the  subsequent  history,  are  not  reconcilable  with  this  supernatural  revelation,  which, 
according  to  the.se  accounts,  both  must  have  received  at  the  time  of  the  baptism. 
But  it  is  impo.ssible  to  instance  a  single  struggle  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  respecting 
the  reality  of  His  mission  ;  it  is  to  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  conversation  at  Csesarea 


124  COMMENTAUY    Ois    ST.   LUKE, 

Philippi  (see  9  :  18,  et  seg.),  and  of  the  prayer  in  Getbsemane,  to  find  such  a  meaning 
in  t-bem.  And  as  to  the  doul)ls  of  John  the  Baptist,  they  certainly  did  not  respect 
the  origin  of  the  missioa  of  Jesus,  since  it  is  to  none  other  than  Jesus  Himself  tliat 
John  ajjplies  for  then-  solution,  but  solely  to  the  nature  of  this  mission.  The  unos- 
leiitatiiiiis  and  peaceful  progress  of  the  work  of  Jesus,  His  miracles  purely  of  mercy 
{"  ]uii}iitg  heard  of  the  works  of  Christy"  Matt.  11  :  2).  contrasted  so  forcibly  with  the 
terrible  Messianic  judgment  whica  he  liad  announced  as  imtuiueut  (3  :  9,  17),  that  lie 
was  led  to  ask  himself  whether,  in  accordance  with  a  prevalent  opinion  of  Jewish 
theology,*  Jesus  was  not  the  messenger  of  grace,  the  instrumeut  of  sahution  ;  while 
another,  a  second  (tTepoc,  Matt.  11  :  3),  to  come  after  Him,  would  be  the  agent  of 
divine  judgment,  and  the  temporal  restorer  of  the  people  purifiefl  from  every  corrup- 
tion. John's  doubt  therefore  respects,  not  the  divinity  of  Jesus'  mission,  but  the 
ex'clusim  character  of  His  Messianic  dignity.  4.  It  is  asked  why  John,  if  he  believed 
in  Jesus,  did  nut  from  the  hour  of  the  baptism  immediately  take  his  place  among 
His  adherents  ?  But  had  he  not  a  permanent  duty  to  fulfil  iu  regard  to  Israel  ?  Was 
he  not  to  continue  to  act  as  a  mediating  agent  between  this  people  and  Jesus?  To 
abandon  his  special  position,  distinct  as  it  was  from  that  of  Jesus,  iu  order  1o  rank 
himself  among  His  disciples,  would  have  been  to  deseit  his  otlicial  post,  and  to  cease 
to  be  a  mediator  for  Isiael  between  them  and  their  King. 

We  cannot  imagine  for  a  moment,  especially  looking  at  the  matter  from  a  Jewish 
point  of  view,  according  to  which  every  holy  mission  proceeds  from  above,  that  Jesus 
would  determme  to  undertake  the  unheard-of  task  of  the  salvation  of  the  world  and 
of  the  destruction  of  sin  and  death,  and  that  John  could  share  this  determination,  and 
proclaim  it  in  God's  name  a  heavenly  mission,  without  some  positive  sign,  some  sen- 
sible manifestation  of  the  divine  will.  Jesus,  says  Keim,  is  not  a  man  of  visions  ;  He 
needs  no  such  signs  ;  there  is  no  need  of  a  dove  between  God  and  Hiin.  Has  Keim, 
then,  forgotten  the  real  humanity  of  Jesus  ?  That  there  were  no  visions  during  the 
course  of  His  ministry,  we  concede  ;  there  was  no  room  for  ecstasy  in  a  man  whose 
inwaid  life  was  henceforth  that  of  the  Spirit  Himself.  But  that  there  had  been  none 
in  His  preceding  life  up  to  the  very  threshold  of  this  new  state,  is  more  than  any  one 
can  assert.  Jesus  lived  over  again,  if  we  may  venture  to  say  so,  the  whole  life  of 
humanity  and  the  whole  life  of  Israel,  so  far  as  these  two  lives  were  of  a  noimal 
character  ;  and  this  was  how  it  was  that  He  so  well  understood  them.  Why  should 
not  the  preparatory  educational  method  of  which  God  made  such  frequent  use  under 
the  old  covenant— the  vision— have  had  ils  place  in  His  inward  development,  before 
He  reached,  physically  and  spiritually,  the  stature  of  complete  manhood  ? 

M.  The  Narratives  of  the  Baq)tism.— Before  we  pronounce  an  opinion  on  the  oiigin 
of  our  synoptical  narratives,  it  is  important  to  ompare  the  apocryphal  narrati(ms. 
In  the  "  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,"  which  Jerome  had  trans!ated,f  the  mother  and 
brethren  of  Jesus  invite  Him  to  go  and  be  baptized  by  John.  He  answers  :  "  Where  in 
have  I  sinned,  and  why  should  I  go  to  be  baptized  by  him— unless,  perhaps,  this 
speech  which  I  have  just  uttered  be  [a  sin  of]  ignorance?"  Afterward,  a  heavenly 
voice  addresses  these  words  to  Him  :  "  My  Son,  iu  all  the  prophets  I  have  waited  for 
Thy  coming,  in  order  to  take  my  rest  in  Thee  :  for  it  is  Thou  whoattmy  rest; 
Thou  art  my  first-born  Son,  and  Thou  shalt  reign  eternally."     lathe  Preaching  of 

*  See  my  "  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,"  i.  p  311. 
f  "  Adv.  Pet."  iii.  1. 


THE    BAPTISM    OF   JKSLS.  IsJo 

Paul*  Jesus  actually  confesses  His  sins  to  John  the  Baptist,  just  as  all  the  others. 
In  the  Ehionitish  recension  of  the  Oonpel  of  the  Ilebreirs,  cited  by  Epiphauius.f  a 
great  light  surrounds  the  place  where  Jesus  has  just  been  baptized  :  then  the  plenti- 
tudc  of  the  Holy  Spirit  enters  into  Jesus  under  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  a  divine  voice 
says  to  Ilini,  "  Thou  art  my  well-beloved  S.)n  ;  on  Thee  I  have  bestowed  my  good 
pleasure."  It  resumes  :  "  To-day  have  I  begotten  Thee."  In  this  Gospel,  also,  the 
dialogue  between  Jesus  and  John,  which  ^latthew  relates  before  the  baptism,  is  placed 
after  it.  John,  after  having  seen  the  miraculous  signs,  says  to  Jesus,  "  Who  tlien  art 
Thou?"  The  divine  voice  replies,  "  Tiiis  is  my  beloved  Son,  on  whom  I  have 
bestowed  my  good  pleasure."  John  falls  at  His  feet,  and  says  to  Him,  "Baptize 
me  I"  and  Jesus  answers  hira,  "  Cease  from  that."  Justin  Martyr  relates,:}:  that 
when  Jesus  had  gone  down  into  the  water,  a  fire  blazed  up  in  the  Jordan  ;  next,  that 
when  He  came  out  of  the  water,  the  Holy  Spirit,  like  a  dove,  descended  upon  Hini  , 
lastly,  that  when  He  had  ascended  from  the  river,  the  voice  said  to  Him,  "  Thou  art 
my  Son  ;  lo-day  have  I  begotten  Thee."  Who  cannot  feel  the  dilferenee  between 
prodiiries  of  this  kind— between  these  theological  and  amplified  discourses  attributed 
to  God — and  the  holy  sobriety  of  our  biblical  narratives  V  The  latter  are  the  text  ; 
the  apocryiihal  writings  give  the  human  paraphrase.  The  comparison  of  these  two 
kinds  of  narrative  proves  that  the  tj'pe  of  the  apostolic  tradition  has  been  preserved 
pure  as  the  impress  of  a  medal,  in  the  common  tenor  of  our  synoptical  narratives. 
As  to  the  difference  between  these  narratives,  they  are  not  without  importance.  The 
princii)al  differences  are  these  ;  Matthew  has,  over  and  above  the  two  others,  the 
dialogue  between  Jesus  and  John  which  preceded  the  baptism,  and  which  was  only 
a  contiimalion  of  the  act  of  confession  winch  Jesus  had  just  made.  The  Ebionite 
Gospel  places  it  after,  because  it  did  not  understand  this  connection.  The  prayer  of 
Jesus  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  he  differs  frum  the  other  two  in  the  remurkal)le  turn 
cf  the  participle  applied  to  the  fact  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  and  in  the  more  objective 
form  in  which  the  miraculous  facts  are  mentioned.  Mark  diffeis  from  the  others  onl}'' 
in  the  form  of  certain  phrases,  and  in  the  expression,  "  He  saw  the  heavens  open." 
Holtzmanu  derives  the  accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke  from  that  of  the  alleged  origi- 
nal Mai  k,  which  was  very  nearly  an  exact  facsimile  of  our  canonical  Mark.  But 
whence  did  the  other  two  derive  what  is  peculiar  to  them?  Not  from  their  imagina- 
tion, for  an  earnest  writer  does  not  treat  a  subject  v/hich  lie  regards  as  sacred  in  this 
way.  Either,  then,  from  a  document  or  from  tradition  ?  But  this  document  or  tra- 
dition could  not  contain  merely  the  detail  peculiar  to  each  evangelist  ;  the  detail 
implies  the  complete  narrative.  If  the  evangelist  drew  the  detail  from  it,  he  mo.st 
probably  look  from  it  the  narrative  also.  Whence  it  seems  to  us  to  follow,  tliat  at 
the  basis  of  our  Syn.  we  must  place  certain  documents  or  oral  narrations,  emanating 
from  the  primitive  tradition  (in  this  way  their  common  general  tenor  is  explained), 
but  differing  in  some  details,  either  because  in  the  oral  tradition  the  secondary  feat- 
ures of  the  narrative  naturally  underwent  some  modification,  or  because  the  private 
djcuments  underwent  some  alterations,  owing  to  additional  oral  information,  or  to 
writings  which  might  be  accessible. 

*  See  "  De  rebaptismate,"  in  the  works  of  Cyprian.    Grabe,  "  Spicil."  t.  i.  p.  G9. 
t  "  Haer."  xxx.  13.  |  "  Dial.  c.  Tryph."  c.  88  and  103. 


VZi)  COMMliXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 


THIRD  NARRATIVE. — 3  :  23-38 

2'he  Genealogy  of  Jesus. 
In  the  first  Gospel  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  is  placed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
narrative.  This  is  easily  explained.  From  the  point  of  view  indicated  l)y  theocratic 
foims,  scriptural  antecedents,  and,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  Jewish  etiquette,  the 
Messiah  was  to  be  a  descendant  of  David  and  Abraham  (Matt.  1  :  1).  Tiiis  relation- 
ship was  the  sine  qua  7ion  of  His  civil  status.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  underslaud  why 
Luke  thought  he  must  give  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  and  why  he  places  it  just  here, 
between  the  baptism  and  the  temptation.  Perhaps,  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  obscurity 
in  which,  to  the  Greeks,  the  origin  of  mankind  was  hidden,  and  the  absurd  fables 
current  among  them  about  autochthonic  nations,  we  shall  see  how  interesting  any 
document  would  be  to  them,  wliich,  following  the  track  of  actual  names,  went  back 
to  the  lirst  father  of  the  race.  Luke's  intention  would  thus  be  very  nearly  the  same 
as  Paid's  when  he  said  at  Athens  (Acts  17  r  2G),  "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  the 
whole  human  race  "  But  from  a  strictly  religious  point  of  view,  this  genealogy  pos- 
sessed still  greater  importance.  In  carrying  it  back  not  only,  as  Matthew  does,  as 
far  as  Abraham,  but  even  to  Adam,  Luke  laysthe  foundation  of  that  universality  of 
redem[;.tion  which  is  to  be  one  of  the  characteristic  fealures  of  the  picture  he  is  about 
to  draw.  In  this  way  he  jjlaces  in  close  and  indissoluble  connection  the  imperfect 
image  of  God  created  in  Adam,  which  reappears  in  every  man,  and  His  perfect  image 
realized  in  Christ,  which  is  to  be  reproduced  in  all  men. 

But  why  does  Luke  place  this  document  here?  Iloltzmann  replies  (p  112), 
"  because  hitherto  there  had  been  no  suitable  place  for  it. "  This  answer  harmonizes 
very  well  with  the  process  ot  fabrication,  by  means  of  which  this  scholar  thinks  the 
composition  of  the  Syn.  may  be  accounted  for.  But  why  did  tills  particular  place 
appear  mote  suitable  to  the  evangelist  than  another?  This  is  what  has  to  be 
explained.  Luke  himself  puts  us  on  the  right  track  by  the  first  words  of  ver.  23. 
By  giving  prominence  to  the  person  of  Jesus  in  the  use  of  the  pronoun  avrui,  He, 
which  opens  the  sentence,  by  the  addition  of  the  name  Jesus,  and  above  all,  by  the 
verb  yv  which  separates  this  pronoun  and  this  substantive,  and  sets  them  both  iu 
YcVict  ("  and  Iliinself  was,  Jle,  Jesus  .  .  ."),  Luke  indicates  this  as  the  moment 
when  Jesus  enters  personally  on  the  scene  to  commence  His  proper  woik.  With 
the  baptism,  the  obscurity  in  which  He  has  lived  until  now  passes  away  ;  lie  now 
appears  detached  from  the  circle  of  persons  who  have  hitherto  surrounded  Him  and 
acted  as  Ilis  patrons — namely,  His  parents  and  the  forerunner.  He  henceforth 
becomes  the  lie,  the  principal  personage  of  the  narrative.  This  is  the  moment  which 
very  pre  perly  appears  to  the  author  most  suitable  for  giving  His  genealogy.  The 
genealogy  of  Moses,  in  the  Exodus,  is  placed  in  the  same  way,  not  at  the  opening  of 
his  biography,  but  at  the  moment  when  he  appears  on  the  stage  of  history,  when  he 
presents  himself  before  Pharaoh  (6:14,  et  seq.).  In  crossing  the  threshold  of  this 
new  era,  the  sacred  historian  casts  a  general  glance  over  the  period  which  thus  reaches 
its  close,  and  sums  it  up  in  this  document,  which  might  be  called  the  mortuar^^  regis- 
ter of  the  earlier  humanity. 

There  is  further  a  difference  of  form  between  "the  two  genealogies.  Mai  thew  comes 
df)wn,  while  Luke  ascends  the  stream  of  generations,  Perhaps  this  difference  of 
method  depends  on  the  difference  of  religious  position  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Greeks.     The  Jew,  finding  the  basis  of  his  thoirght  in  a  revelation,  proceeds  synlhet- 


vnw.   in.  :  2'S-:IS.      .  121! 

ically  from  causj  to  effect ;  the  Greek,  possessing  nytliiiig  .be5^oncl  the  fiict,  analyzes 
it,  that  he  may  proceed  from  effect  to  cause.  But  this  difference  depends  more 
prjbably  still  on  another  circumstance.  Every  official  genealogical  register  must 
picsenl  the  descending  I'orm  ;  for  individuals  are  only  inscribed  in  it  as  lliey  are  born. 
Tlio  ascending  form  of  genealogy  can  only  be  that  of  a  private  instrument,  drawn 
up  from  the  public  document  with  a  view  to  the  particular  individual  whose  name 
serves  as  the  starting-point,  of  the  whole  list.  It  follows  that  in  Matthew  we  have 
the  exact  copy  of  the  official  register  ;  while  Luke  gives  us  a  document  extracted 
from  the  public  records,  and  compiled  with  a  view  to  the  person  with  whom  the 
genealogy  commences. 

Ver.  23  is  at  once  the  transition  and  i)reamble  ;  vers.  24-38  contain  the  genealogy 
itself.  1st.  Ver.  23.*  The  eXiict  translation  of  this  impotlant  and  difficult  veise  is 
this:  "And  Himself,  Jesus,  was  [agedj  about  thirty  years  when  He  began  [or,  if 
the  term  may  be  employed  here,  made  His  debut],  being  a  son,  as  was  believed,  of 
Joseph."  The  expression  to  begin  can  only  refer  in  this  passage  to  the  entrance  of 
Jesus  upon  His  Messianic  work.  This  idea  is  in  direct  coimection  with  the  context 
(h;iplism,  templalion),  and  particularly  with  the  tirst  words  of  the  verse.  Having 
fully  betrome  He,  Jesus  begins.  AVe  must  take  care  not  to  connect  apxo/ni'oi  and  J/t^ 
as  parts  of  a  single  verb  (was  beginning  for  began).  For  yv  lias  a  complement  of  its 
own,  of  thirty  y "11  rs  ;  it  therefore  signifies  here,  iras  of  the  age  of .  Some  have  tried 
to  make  rp/a'/coirafTui'  depend  on  ap^\'o/zfro;,  He  began  His  tliivHcth  year;  and  it  is 
perhaps  owing  to  this  iulerpretatiDn  that  we  find  this  participle  placed  first  in  the 
Alex.  But  for  this  sense,  To>a:ioarnv  erov;  would  have  been  necessary  ;  and  the  Mmita- 
tion  about  cannot  have  reference  to  the  commencement  of  the  year.  (On  the  agreement 
of  this  chronological  fact  with  the  dale,  ver.  1,  see  p.  lOG).  We  liave  already 
observed  that  the  age  of  thirty  is  that  of  the  greatest  physical  and  psychical  strength, 
the  aK/if}  of  natural  life.  It  was  the  age  at  which,  among  the  Jews,  the  Levites 
entered  upon  their  duties  (Num.  4:3,  23),  and  when,  among  the  Greeks,  a  young 
man  bep:an  to  lake  part  in  public  affairs. f  The  participle  up,  being,  makes  a  strange 
impression,  not  only  because  it  is  purely  and  simply  in  juxtaposition  with  ufixo^ei-'oS 
(beginning,  being),  and  depends  on  t/v,  the  very  verb  of  whicli  it  is  a  part,  but  still 
more  because  its  connection  with  the  latter  verb  cannot  be  explained  by  any  of  the 
three  logical  relations  by  which  a  participle  is  connected  with  a  completed  verb, 
when,  because,  or  although.  What  relation  of  simultaneousness,  causality,  or  opposi- 
tion, could  there  be  between  the  filiation  of  Jesus  and  the  age  at  wliich  He  had 
arrived?  This  incoherence  is  a  clear  indication  that  the  evangelist  has  with  some 
difficulty  effected  a  soldering  of  two  documents— tliat  which  he  has  hither  o  followed, 
and  which  for  the  moment  he  abandons,  and  the  genealogical  register  which  he 
wishes  to  insert  m  this  place. 

With  the  participle  uv,  being,  there  begins  then  a  transition  which  we  owe  to  the 
pen  of  Luke.  How  far  does  it  extend,  and  where  docs  the  genealogical  regi.>ier 
properly  begin?     This  is  a  nice  and  important  question.     We  have  only  a  hint  for 

*  5i.  B.  L.  X.  som(!  Mnn.  Il"''i,  Or.  ])lace  apxofiei'oc  before  uaei  eruv  TpinKorm, 
while  T.  R.,  with  all  the  rest  of  the  documenls,  pliu:e  it  after  these  words,  i*.  B.  L. 
some  -Mnn.  read  in  this  order  :  uf  vioi  ui  eio/ic^ero  Juar/d,  instead  of  tjf  (jc  evo/jiCero 
vioi  \uriil0  in  T.  R.  and  Ihe  other  authorities.  H.  r.  (not  B.)  same  Mnn.  add  ruo 
befoi"c  lu)n7/<p. 

f  S.-u  the  two  passages  from  Xenophon  ("Mcmor."  1)  and  from  Dionysius  of 
Ilalicainassus  ('  Hist."  iv.  6),  cited  Ijy  Wieseler,  Beilriigc,  etc.,  pp.  1G5,  166. 


1''IS  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKK. 

its  solution.  This  is  the  absence  of  the  article  tov,  the,  before  the  name  Joseph.  This 
word  is  found  before  all  the  names  belonging  to  the  genealogical  series.  In  I  he 
genealogy  of  Matthew,  the  article  tuv  is  put  in  the  same  way  before  each  proper  name, 
which  clearly  proves  that  it  was  the  ordinary  form  in  vogue  in  this  kind  of  document. 
The  two  Mss.  H.  and  I.  read,  it  is  true,  rov  before  'luaijcl).  Uut  since  these  unimpor- 
tant Mss.  are  unsupported  by  their  ally  the  Vatican,  to  which  foimerly  the  same 
reading  was  erroneously  attributed  (see  Tiscliend.  8th  cd.),  this  various  reading  1ki« 
no  longer  any  weight.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  easily  explained  as  an  imitation  of 
the  following  terms  of  ihe  genealogy  ;  on  the  other,  we  could  not  conceive  cf  the 
suppression  of  the  article  in  all  the  most  ancient  documents,  if  it  had  originally 
belungeil  to  the  te.xt.  This  want  of  the  article  puts  the  name  Joseph  outside  the 
genealogical  series  properly  so  called,  and  assigns  to  it  a  peculiar  position.  We  must 
conclude  from  it— l.s^  That  this  name  belongs  rather  to  the  sentence  introduced  by 
Luke  ;  2d.  That  the  genealogical  document  which  he  consulted  began  with  the  name 
of  Ileli  ;  Sd.  And  consequently,  that  this  piece  was  not  originally  the  gtnealogy  of 
Jesus  or  of  Joseph,  but  of  Heli. 

There  is  a  second  question  to  determine  :  whether  we  should  prefer  the  Alexan- 
drine reading,  "  being  a  son,  as  it  was  believed,  of  Joseph  ;"  or  the  Byzantine  text, 
"  being,  as  it  was  believed,  a  son  of  Joseph."  There  is  internal  probability  that  the 
copyists  would  rather  have  been  drawn  to  connect  the  words  son  and  Joseph,  in  order 
to  leslore  the  phrase  frequently  employed  in  the  Gospels,  aon  of  Joseph,  than  to 
separate  them.     This  observation  appears  to  decide  for  the  Alexandrine  text. 

It  is  of  importance  next  to  determine  the  exact  meaning  of  the  rov  which  precedes 
each  of  the  genealogical  names.  Thus  far  we  have  supposed  this  word  to  be  the 
article,  and  this  is  the  natural  interpretation.  But  we  might  give  it  the  force  of  a 
pronoun,  lie,  tlte  one,  and  translate  :  "  Joseph,  he  [the  son]  of  Ileli  ;  Ileli,  lie  [the  son] 
of  Matthat,"  etc.  Thus  understood,  the  rov  would  each  time  be  in  apposition  with 
the  preceding  name,  and  would  have  the  following  name  for  its  complement.  But 
this  explanation  cannot  be  maintained  ;  for — \st.  It  cannot  be  applied  to  the  last  term 
rov  Qeov,  in  which  tov  is  evidently  an  article  ;  2d.  The  recurrence  of  t6i>  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  'Matthew  proves  that  the  article  belonged  to  the  terminology  of  these  docu- 
ments ;  M.  The  rov  thus  understood  would  imply  an  intention  to  distinguish  the 
individual  to  which  it  refers  from  some  other  person  bearing  the  same  name,  but  not 
having  the  same  father,  "  Ileli,  the  one  of  Matthat  [and  not  one  of  another  father]  ;" 
which  could  not  be  the  design  of  the  genealogist.  The  tov  is  therefore  undoulitedly 
an  article.  But,  admitting  this,  we  may  still  hesitate  between  two  interpretations  ; 
we  may  subordinate  each  genitive  to  the  preceding  name,  as  is  ordinarily  done  : 
"  Heli,  son  of  Matthat,  [which  Matthat  was  a  son]  of  Levi,  [which  Levi  was  a  son] 
of  .  .  .  ;"  or,  as  TVieseler  proposer!,  we  may  co-ordinate  all  the  genitives,  so 
as  to  make  each  of  them  depend  directly  on  the  word  son  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
entire  series:  "Jesus,  son  of  Heli;  [Jesus,  son]  of  ?Jatthat  .  .  ."  iSo  that, 
according  to  the  Jewish  usage,  which  permitted  a  grandson  to  be  called  the  son  of  his 
(jrandfather,  Jesus  would  be  called  the  son  of  each  of  His  ancestors  in  succession. 
This  interpretation  would  not  be,  in  itself,  so  forced  as  Bleek  maintains.  But  never- 
theless the  former  is  preferable,  for  it  alone  really  expresses  the  notion  of  a  succession 
of  generations,  which,  \i\he  ruling  idea  of  every  genealog}'.  The  genitives  in  Luke 
merely  supplj  the  place  of  syewTjae,  as  repeated  in  the  original  document,  of  whicli 
Matthew  gives  us  the  text.     Besides,  we  do  not  think  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 


CUM'.   III.  :  ^'3-;3«.  129 

supply,  between  eacli  link  in  the  genealogical  chain,  the  term  viov,  son  of,  as  an  appo- 
sition of  the  precedinv:  name.  Each  genitive  Is  also  the  complement  of  the  name 
•which  pieceiles  it.  The  idea  of  liliation  resides  in  the  giammalical  case.  We  have 
the  gciiitice  here  in  its  essence. 

There  remains,  lastly,  the  still  more  importnnt  question  :  On  what  docs  the  geni- 
tive Tov  'U'/.i  (of  I  Id  i)  precisely  depend  ?  On  the  name  'lun>'j(fi  which  iminediiitely  pre- 
cedes it  V  This  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  analogy  cf  all  the  other  genitives, 
which,  as  Ave  have  just  proved,  depend  each  on  the  preceding  name.  Thus  lleli 
Would  have  l)eeu  the  father  of  .Tosepli,  and  the  genealogy  of  Luke,  as  xrell  as  that  of 
Matthew,  would  be  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  through  Joseph.  In  tliat  case  we  should 
have  to  explain  how  the  two  documents  could  be  so  lolall}'  dilTerent.  But  this  view 
is  incompatible  with  the  absence  of  tlie  article  before  Joseph..  If  the  name  'lua/io  had 
been  intended  by  Luke  to  be  the  basis  of  the  entire  genealogical  series,  it  would  have 
been  li.xed  and  determined  by  the  article  with  nuich  greater  reason  certainly  than  the 
names  tliat  follow.  The  genitive  roi) 'H/ii,  of  Ileli,  depends  therefore  not  on  Joseph, 
but  on  the  word  son.  This  construction  is  not  p(.ssil)le,  it  is  true,  wilh  the  received 
reading,  in  which  the  words  son  and  Joseph  form  a  single  phrase,  son  (f  Joseph.  The 
Word  son  cannot  be  separated  from  the  word  it  immediatel^v  governs  :  Joseph,  to 
receive  a  second  and  more  distant  coinplCi-nent.  "With  this  reading,  the  only  thing 
left  to  us  is  to  make  tov  'H/i  de|)ond  on  the  participle  uf  :  "  Jesus  .  .  .  being 
.  .  ,  [born]  of  Hell."  An  antithesis  might  be  found  between  the  real  fact  (lii', 
being)  and  the  apparent  {tvnuH^fTo,  as  was  thought) :  "  being,  as  was  thought,  a  sou  of 
Joseph,  [in  reality]  born  of  Ileli."  But  can  the  word  (if  signify  both  to  he  (in  the 
sense  of  the  verb  substantive)  and  to  be  born  of?  Everything  becomes  much  moie 
simple  if  we  assume  tiie  Alex,  reading,  which  on  otl.er  grounds  has  already  appeared 
to  us  the  more  probal)lc.  The  word  son,  separated  as  it  is  from  its  first  complement, 
of  Joseph,  l)y  the  words  rr>i  iras  thomjld,  may  very  well  have  a  second,  of  Ileli.  The 
first  is  only  noticed  in  passing,  ani  iu  order  to  be  denied  in  the  very  mention  of  it ; 
"  Son,  as  was  thou;;ht.  of  Joseph."  The  ofTicial  information  being  thus  disavowed, 
Luke,  by  means  of  the  second  complement,  substitutes  for  it  the  truth,  of  Ileli ;  and 
this  name  he  distinguishes,  by  means  of  the  article,  as  the  lirst  link  of  thegeui.alogical 
cham  properly  so  called.  The  text,  therefore,  to  express  the  author's  meaning 
clearlv,  should  be  written  thus  :  "  being  a  son— as  was  thought,  of  Joseph — of  Ileli, 
of  Matthat  .  .  ."  Bleek  has  put  the  words  tif  efo/tZ^'ero  into  a  parenthesis,  and 
rightly  ;  only  he  should  have  added  to  them  the  word  'loxr;/^. 

This  study  of  the  text  in  detail  leads  us  in  this  way  to  ulmit — 1.  That  the  genea- 
logical register  of  Luke  is  that  of  Ileli,  the  grandfather  of  Jesus  ;  2.  That,  this  affili- 
ation of  Jesus  by  Ileli  being  expressly  opposed  to  His  affiliation  bj'  Joseph,  the  docu- 
ment which  he  lias  preserved  for  us  can  be  nothing  else  in  his  view  than  the  geno- 
alosy  of  Jesus  through  ]\Iary,  But  why  does  not  Luke  name  Mary,  and  why  pa>s 
immediately  from  Jesus  to  His  grandfather  ?  Ancient  sentiment  did  not  conipoit 
with  the  mention  of  the  mother  as  the  genealogical  link.  Among  the  Greeks  a  man 
was  the  sou  of  his  father,  not  of  his  mother  ;  and  among  the  Jews  the  adage  was  : 
"  Genus  matris  non  vocntur  genus" '"  Baba  bathra,"  110,  a).  In  lieu  of  this,  it  is  nut 
uncommon  to  find  in  the  O.  T.  the  grandson  called  the  son  of  his  giandfalher.*     * 

*  Comp.  for  example,  1  Chron.  8  :  3  with  Gen.  4G  :  21  ;  Ezra  5:1,0-  14  with 
Zech.  1  :  1,  7  ;  and  in  the  N.  T..  Matt.  1  :  8  with  1  Chron.  4:11.  12— a  passage  in 
which  King  Joram  is  even  recorded  as  having  begotten  the  son  of  his  grandson. 


130  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

If  there  were  any  circumstances  in  which  this  usage  was  applicable,  would  not 
the  wholly  exceptional  case  with  which  Luke  was  dealing  be  such  ?  There  was 
only  OQe  way  of  filling  up  the  hiatus,  resulting  from  the  absence  of  the  father, 
between  the  grandfather  and  his  grandson — namely,  to  introduce  the  name  of  the 
pitsumed  father,  noting  at  the  same  time  the  falseness  of  this  opinion.  It  is  remark- 
able that,  in  the  Talmud,  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  is  called  the  daughter  of  Ildi 
("  Chagig."  77  :  4).  From  whence  have  Jewish  scholars  derived  this  information?  If 
from  the  text  of  Luke,  this  proves  that  they  understood  it  as  we  do  ;  if  they 
received  it  from  tradition,  it  confirms  the  Iruih  of  the  genealogical  document  Luke 
made  use  of.- 

If  this  explanation  be  rejected,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Luke  as  well  as  Matthew 
gives  us  the  genealogy  of  Joseph.  The  difficulties  to  be  encoimtered  in  this  direction 
are  these  :  1.  The  absence  of  rov  before  the  uiinie  'Icjaijcp,  and  before  this  name  alone, 
is  not  accounted  for.  2.  We  are  met  by  an  all  but  insoluble  contiadiclion  between 
the  two  evangelists — the  one  indicating  Ileii  as  the  father  of  Josejih,  the  other  Jacob 
— which  leads  to  two  series  of  names  wholly  different.  We  might,  it  is  true,  have 
recoiuse  to  the  following  hypothesis  proposed  by  Julius  Afiicanus  (third  cenluiy) :  f 
Heli  and  Jacob  were  brothers  ;  one  of  thtm  died  without  chiidien  ;  the  survivoi-,  in 
coiifi^i'mity  with  the  law,  married  his  widow,  and  the  first-born  of  this  union,  Joseph, 
was  registered  as  u  son  of  the  deceased.  In  this  way  Joseph  would  have  had  two 
fatheis--one  ie;il,  the  other  legal.  But;  this  hypnthesis  is  not  Kifficient  ;  a  second  is 
needed.  For  if  Ileli  and  Jacob  v.'eie  brothers,  they  must  have  had  the  same  father  ; 
and  the  two  genealogies  should  coincide  on  leaching  the  name  of  the  grandfathir  c/f 
Josepi),  v.'hich  is  not  the  case.  It  is  supposeri,  tlieiefore,  that  they  were  brothers  on 
the  miilher's  side  only,  which  explains  both  the  diileience  of  the  fathers  and  that  (>f 
the  entire  genealogies.  This  supeistructure  of  coincidences  is  not  al;solutely  inad- 
missible, but  no  one  can  think  it  natural.  We  should  l)e  reduced,  then,  to  admit  an 
absolute  contiadictiou  between  the  two  evangelists.  But  can  it  be  supposed  that  l)Glh 
or  either  of  them  could  have  been  capable  of  fabricating  such  a  leg'sler,  heaping 
name  upon  name  quite  aibitrarily,  aud  at  the  mere  pleasuie  of  their  caprice?  Who 
could  credit  a  proceerling  so  al)suid,  and  that  in  two  genealogies,  one  of  which  sets 
out  from  Abiaham,  the  veneiated  ancestor  of  the  people,  the  other  teiminatiug  in 
God  Himself  !  All  these  names  mu.^t  have  been  taken  from  documents.  But  is  it 
possil)le  in  this  case  to  admit,  in  one  or  both  of  these  writeis,  an  entire  nustake  ? 
3.  It  is  not  only  with  Matthew  that  Luke  would  be  in  contradiction,  but  with  him- 
self. He  admits  the  miraculous  birth  (chap.  1  and  2).  It  is  conceivable  that,  fiorn 
the  theocratic  point  of  view  which  3Ia'lhew  takes,  a  certain  interest  might,  even  on 
this  supposition,  be  assigned  to  the  g(  uealogy  of  Joseph,  as  the  adoptive,  legal  father 
of  the  Messiah.  But  that  Luke,  to  whom  tliis  official  point  of  view  was  altogether 
foreigu,  should  have  handed  down  with  so  nuieh  care  this  series  of  seventy-three 
names,  after  having  severed  the  chain  at  the  first  link,  as  he  does  by  the  remark,  as 
it  toas  thought;  that,  further,  he  shoidd  give  himself  the  trouble,  after  this,  to  de- 
velop the  entire  series,  and  finish  at  last  with  God  Himself  :  this  is  a  moral  impos- 
silrility.  What  sensible  man,  Gfrorer  has  very  property  askerl  (with  a  different  de- 
sign, it  is  true),  could  take  pleasure  in  drawing  up  such  a  list  of  ancestors,  after  hav- 
ing declared  that  the  relationship  is  destitute  of  all  reality?  Modem  ciilicism  has, 
last  of  all,  been  driven  to  ilie  following  hypothesis  :  ]\Iatthew  and  Luke  each  found  a 
genealogy  of  Jesus  written  fium  the  Jewisi)-Chiistian  standpoint  :  they  were  both 
different  genealogies  of  .Joseph  ;  for  among  tins  parly  (which  was  no  other  than  the 
primitive  Church)  lie  was  without  hesitation  i-egarded  as  the  father  of  Jesus.  But  at 
the  time  when  these  documents  were  published  by  the  evangelists  another  theoiy 
already  prevailed,  that  of  the  miraculou=^  birth,  which  these  two  aulhurs  endiraced. 
They  published,  therefore,  then-  documents,  adapting  them  as  best  they  could  to  the 

*  The  relationship  of  Jesus  to  the  royal  family  is  also  alEimed  by  the  Talmud 
("Tr.  Sanhednm,"  4;5). 

t  Eus.  "Hist  Eccl."  i.  7. 


CHAP.   III.  :  X'o  38.  131 

new  IjclieF,  iust  :is  Luke  doos  by  his  ns  it  ira/i  f?ioi/f/hf,  iiiirl  Malfliow  hy  (lie  peripliriisis, 
1  :  l(i.  But,  1.  We  liave  pointed  out  that  tlie  opinion  wliieli  iittributcs  to  llie 
primitive  apostolie  Cliurcli  tlie  idea  of  tlie  natural  birlii  of  Jesus  rests  upon  no  solid 
fouiiilation.  2.  A  writer  wlu)  spealvs  of  apostolie  tradition  as  Lidie  spealis  of  it,  1  :  2, 
could  not  have  knowingly  put  himself  in  opposition  to  it  on  a  point  of  this  inipor- 
tanco.  !5.  If  we  advanee  no  claim  on  behalf  of  the  sacred  writers  to  inspiration,  we 
protest  against  whati-ver  impeaches  their  good  sense.  Tiie  first  evangelist,  M. 
Repille  maintains,*  did  not  even  perceive  the  incompalibilitj^  between  the  theory  of 
the  miraculous  birlh  and  his  genealogical  document.  As  to  Luke,  this  same  autiior 
sa5's  :  "  The  third  i)erceives  very  clearly  the  contradiction  ;  nevertheless  he  writes  iiis 
history  as  if  it  did  not  e.Kist. "  In  other  words,  j\Ialthevv  is  more  foolish  than  false, 
Luke  more  false  than  foolish.  Criticism  which  is  obliged  to  support  itself  i)y  attribut- 
ing to  the  sacred  writers  absurd  methods,  such  as  are  found  in  no  sensible  writer,  is 
self-condemned.  Tiiere  is  not  (he  smallest  proof  that  the  documents  used  by  J\Ial- 
thew  and  Luke  were  of  Jewish-Christian  origin.  On  the  C0D(rary,  it  is  ver}'  prob- 
able, since  the  facts  all  go  to  establish  it,  (ha(  they  were  simply  copies  of  the 
ollicial  registers  of  ilw  jm bile  idhl-H  (see  below),  referring,  one  to  Joseph,  the  other 
to  Ileli,  both  consequently  of  Jewish  origin.  So  far  from  (here  being  any  ground 
to  regard  them  as  monuments  of  a  Christian  conception,  differing  from  that  of  the 
evangelists,  it  is  these  authors,  or  those  who  transmitted  them  to  tnem,  who  set  upon 
them  for  the  tirst  time  the  Christiau  seal,  by  adding  to  them  the  part  which  refers  to 
Jesus.  4.  Lastl}',  after  all,  these  two  series  of  completely  difTerent  names  liave  lu 
any  case  to  be  explained.  Are  they  fictidous  ?  Who  can  maiu(ain  (his,  when  wrilers 
so  evidenlly  in  earnest  are  concerned?  Are  they  founded  upon  documents?  Ilow 
then  could  tliey  differ  so  completely?  This  dillicuUy  becomes  greater  still  if  it  is 
maintained  that  these  two  dilferent  genealogies  of  Joseph  proceed  from  the  same 
ecclesiasiical  (piarter — from  the  Jewish-Cbnstian  party. 

Bat  have  we  sufficient  proofs  of  the  existence  of  genealogical  registers  among  (he 
Jews  at  this  epoch  ?  We  have  alreaiiy  referred  to  the  public  tablets  {(')i-:1toi  ()Ti/i'i(7iai) 
from  which  Josephus  had  extracted  his  own  genealogy  :  "  I  relate  my  genealogy  as 
1  lind  it  recorded  in  the  public  tiibles. "  f  The  same  Josephus,  in  his  work,  "  Contra 
Apion"  (i.  7),  says  :  "From  all  the  cuuutiies  in  whicli  our  priests  are  scattered 
abr[)ad,  they  send  to  Jerusalem  (in  order  to  have  their  (diildren  entered)  documents 
containing  (he  names  of  their  parents  and  ances(ors,  and  countersigned  by  wit- 
nesses." What  was  done  for  the  priestl^^  families  could  not  fail  to  have  been  done 
Avith  regard  to  the  royal  family,  from  which  it  was  known  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
spring.  The  same  conclusion  results  also  from  the  following  facts.  The  famous 
Rabl)i  Hillel,  avIio  lived  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  succeeded  in  proving,  bj'  means  of  a 
genealogical  table  in  existence  at  Jerusalem,  that,  although  a  poor  man,  he  was  a 
descendant  of  David.:}:  The  line  of  descent  in  the  different  branches  of  the  royal 
family  was  so  well  known  that  even  at  the  end  of  thefiist  century  of  the  Church  the 
grandsons  of  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  had  to  appear  at  Rome  as  descendants 
of  David,  and  undergo  examination  in  the  presence  of  Domitian.^  According  to 
these  facts,  the  existence  of  two  genealogical  documents  relating,  one  to  JosephTlhe 
other  to  Hell,  and  preserved  in  their  respective  families,  otfers  absolutely  nothing  at 
all  improbable. 

In  comparing  the  two  narratives  of  the  infancy,  we  have  been  led  to  assign  them  to 
two  different  sources  :  that  of  Matthew  appeared  to  us  to  emanate  from  the  lelations  of 
Joseph  ;  liiat  of  Luke  from  the  circle  of  which  Mary  was  the  centre  (p.  IGIJ).  Some- 
thing similar  occurs  again  in  regard  to  the  two  genealogies.  That  of  Matthew, 
"Which  has  Joseph  in  view,  must  have  proceeded  from  his  family  ;  that  which  Luke  has 
transmitted  to  us,  bt'ing  that  of  Mary's  father,  must  have  come  from  (his  huter  quarter. 
But  it  is  manifest  that  this  difference  of  production  is  connected  with  a  moral  cause. 
The  meaning  of  one  of  the  genealogies  is  certainly  hereditary,  ]\Iessianic  ;  the  mean- 
ing of  the  other  is  universal  redemption.  Hence,  in  the  one,  the  relationship  is 
through  Joseph,  the  representative  of  the  civil,  national,  theocratic  side  ;  in  the  other, 

*  "  Histoire  du  Dograe  de  la  Divinile  de  Jesus  Christ,"  p.  27. 

^  Jos.  •'  Vita,"  c.  i.  |  "  Beresclut  rabba,"'J8. 

ti  Ucgesippus,  in  Euscbius'  "  Hist.  Eccl."  iii.  19  and  20  (ed.  Loemmer). 


132  COMMEInTARY    ox    ST.   LUKE. 

the  descent,  is  through  Mary,  the  organ  of  the  real  human  reUitiouship,  Was  not 
Jesus  at  once  to  appear  and  to  he  the  son  of  David  ? — to  appear  such,  through  him 
■vvliom  the  people  regarded  as  His  father  ;  to  be  such,  tluough  her  from  wIkjui  lie 
lealjy  derived  His  human  existtuce  V  The  two  athlialious  answered  to  these  two  re- 
quirements. 

Second.  Vers.  24-38.*  And  first,  vers.  24-27  :  from  Hell  to  the  captivity.  In 
this  period  Luke  mentions  21  generations  (up  to  Nerl)  ;  only  19,  if  the  various  read- 
ing of  Africanus  be  admitted  ;  Matthew,  14.  This  last  number  is  evidently  too  small 
for  the  length  of  the  period.  As  Matthew  omits  in  the  period  of  the  kmgs  four  well- 
known  names  of  the  O.  T.,  it  is  probal)le  that  he  takes  the  same  course  here,  either 
through  an  involuntarj' omission,  or  for  the  sake  of  keeping  to  the  number  14  (1  :  17). 
This  comparison  should  make  us  appreciate  the  exactness  of  Luke's  register.  But 
how  is  it  that  the  names  Zorobabel  and  Saiathiel  occur,  connected  with  each  other 
in  the  same  waj-,  in  both  the  genealogies  ?  And  how  can  Salatbiel  have  Neri  for  Lis 
father  in  Luke,  and  in  Matthew  King  JechoniasV  Should  these  names  be  regarded 
as  standmg  for  different  persons,  as  Wieseler  thinks?  This  is  not  impossible.  The 
Zorobabel  and  the  Saiathiel  of  Luke  might  be  two  unknown  persons  of  the  obscurer 
branch  of  the  royal  family  descended  from  Na(han  ;  the  Zorobabel  and  the  Saiathiel 
of  Matthew,  the  two  well-known  persons  of  the  O.  T.  history,  belonging  to  the  reign- 
ing blanch,  the  first  a  sou,  the  second  a  grandson  of  King  Jechonias  (1  Chron.  3  :  17); 
Ezra  3:2;  Hag.  1  :  1).  This  is  the  view  which,  after  all,  appears  to  Bleek  most  piob- 
able.  It  is  open,  however,  to  a  serious  objection  from  the  fact  that  these  two  names, 
in  the  two  lists,  refer  so  exactly  to  the  same  period,  since  in  both  of  them  they  are 
very  nearly  half  way  between  Jesus  and  David.  If  the  identiiy  of  these  persons  in 
the  two  genealogies  is  admitted,  the  explanation  must  be  found  in  2  Kings  24  :  12, 
which  proves  that  King  Jechonias  had  no  son  at  the  time  when  he  was  carried  into 
captivity.  It  is  scarcely  probable  that  he  had  one  while  in  prison,  where  he  remained 
shut  up  for  thirty-eight  years.  He  or  they  whom  the  passage  1  Chron.  C  :  17  assigns 
to  him  (which,  besides,  may  be  translated  in  three  different  ways)  must  be  regarded 
as  adopted  sons  or  as  sons-m-law  ;  fhey  would  be  spoken  ot  as  sons,  because  they 
would  be  unwilling  to  allow  the  reigning  branch  of  the  royal  family  to  become  ex- 
tinct. Saiathiel,  the  first  of  them,  would  thus  have  some  other  father  than  Jechonias  ; 
and  this  father  would  be  Neri,  of  the  Nathan  branch,  indicated  by  Luke.  An  alter- 
native hypothesis  has  been  proposed,  founded  on  the  Levirale  law.  Neri,  as  a  rel- 
ative of  Jechonias,  might  have  married  one  of  the  wives  of  the  imprisoned  king,  in 
order  to  perpetuate  the  royal  family  ;  and  the  son  of  this  union,  Saiathiel,  would  have 
been  legally  a  son  of  Jechonias,  but  really  a  son  of  Neri.  In  any  case,  the  numerous 
diff'eiences  that  are  found  in  the  statements  of  our  historical  books  at  this  period 
prove  that  the  catastrophe  of  the  captivity  brought  considerable  confusion  into  the  reg- 
isters or  family  traditions. f   Rhesa  and  Abiud,  put  down,  the  one  by  Luke,  the  other 

*  We  omit  the  numerous  orthographical  variations  connected  with  these  proper 
names.  Ver.  24.  Jul.  Afric.  Eus.  Ir.  (probably)  omit  the  two  names  UaOOad  and 
\tvei. 

+  According  to  1  Chron.  3  :  16,  2  Chron.  36  :  10  (Heb.  text),  Zedekiah  was  son  of 
Jehoiakira  and  brother  of  Jehoiachiu  ;  but,  according  to  2  Kings  24  :  17  and  Jer. 
87  :  1,  he  was  son  of  Josiah  and  Ijrother  of  Jehoiakim,  According  to  1  (.'hi'on.  3  :  19, 
Zorobahf'l  was  son  of  Pedaiah  and  grandson  of  Jecr.niali,  nnd  cf;npcquently  neplievv 
of  Saiathiel  ;  while,  according  to  Ezra  3  :  2,  Neh.  12  1,  Hag.  1  :  1,  he  was  soU  of 
Saiathiel,  etc. 


CHAP.    IV.    ;  1-13.  133 

by  Matllicw,  as  sons  of  Zorobiiht'l,  ;ire  not  iiuMilioncd  in  tlieO.  T:,  according  to  which 
Ihesoiisof  this  restorer  of  Israel  should  iiave  been  Mesliuilani  and  Ilaiianiah  (1  Ciirtni. 
3  :  19).  Bleek  observes,  that  if  the  evangelists  had  fabricated  their  lists,  they  would 
naturall}'  have  made  use  of  these  two  names  that  are  furnished  by  the  sacred  text  ; 
therefore  they  have  followed  their  documents. 

Vers.  28-^1.  From  the  captivity  to  David,  20  names.  Matthew  for  the  same 
period  has  only  14.  But  it  is  proved  by  the  O.  T.  that  he  omits  four  ;  the  number 
20,  in  Luke,  is  a  fresh  proof  of  the  accuracy  of  his  document.  On  Nathan,  son  of 
David,  comp.  2  Sam.  5  :  14,  Zech.  12  :  12.  The  passage  iu  Zechariah  prov^es  that  this 
branch  was  still  tlourishing  after  the  return  from  the  captivity,  if  Neri,  the  de- 
scendant of  Nathan,  was  the  real  father  of  iSalathie!,  the  adopted  son  or  son-in-law  of 
Jechonias,  we  should  find  here  once  more  the  cliaractenstic  of  tlie  two  genealogies  : 
in  ^fatthew,  the  legal,  official  pointof  view  ;  in  Luke,  the  real,  human  point  of  view. 

YiM's.  32-34rt.  From  David  to  Abraham.  The  two  genealogies  agree  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  O.  T. 

Vers.  34&-38.  From  Abraham  to  Adam.  This  part  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  It  is 
ctmipiled  evidently  from  the  O.  T.,  and  according  to  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  with 
which  it  exactly  coincides.  The  name  Caiuan,  ver.  36,  is  only  found  in  the  LXX., 
and  is  wanting  in  the  Heb.  text  (Gen.  10  :  24,  11  12).  This  must  be  a  very  ancient 
variation.  The  words,  of  Ood,  witii  which  it  ends,  are  intended  to  inform  us  that  it 
is  ni)t  through  ignorance  that  the  genealogist  stops  at  Adam,  but  because  he  has 
reached  the  end  of  the  chain,  perhaps  also  to  remind  us  of  the  truth  expressed  by 
Paul  at  Athens  :  "  We  are  the  offspring  of  God."  The  last  word  of  the  genealogy  is 
connected  with  its  starting-point  (vers.  22,  23).  If  man  were  not  the  offspring  of 
God,  the  incarnation  (ver.  22)  would  be  impossible.  God  cannot  say  to  a  man, 
"  Thou  art  my  beloved  son,"  save  on  this  ground,  that  humanity  itself  is  His  issue 
(ver.  38).* 

FOURTH  NARRAXn'E.  — CHAP.    4:1-13. 

The   Temptation. 

Every  free  creature,  endowed  with  various  faculties,  must  pass  through  a  conflict, 
iu  which  it  decides  either  to  use  them  for  its  own  gratification,  or  to  glorify  God  by 
devoting  them  to  His  service.  The  angels  have  passed  through  this  trial  ;  the  first 
man  underwent  it  ;  Jesus,  being  truly  human,  did  not  escape  it.  Our  Syn.  are 
unanimous  upon  this  point.  Tlieir  testimony  as  to  the  time  wlien  this  conflict  took 
place  is  no  less  accordant.  All  three  place  it  immediately  after  His  baptism,  at  the 
outset  of  His  Messianic  career.  This  date  is  important  for  determining  the  true  mean- 
ing of  this  trial. 

The  temptation  of  the  first  man  bore  upon  the  use  of  the  powers  inherent  in  our 
nature.  Jesus  also  experienced  this  kind  of  trial.  How  many  times  during  His  child- 
hood and  early  manhood  nnist  He  have  been  exposed  to  those  temptations  which  ad- 
dress themselves  to  the  instincts  of  the  natural  life  !  The  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust 
of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life— these  different  forms  of  sin,  separately  or  with 
united  force,  endeavored  to  besiege  His  lieart,  subjugate  His  will,  enslave.  His  powers, 
and  invade  this  pure  being  as  they  had  invaded  the  innocent  Adam.     But  on  the  bat- 

*  See  the  valuable  aj)plications  which  Tliggenbach  makes  of  these  genealogies, 
"  Vie  de  Jesus,"  ninth  lesson,  at  the  commencement. 


134  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

tlc-field  on  which  Adam  had  succumbed  Jesus  remained  a  victor.  The  "  conscience 
without  a  scar,"  wliich  He  carried  from  the  first  part  of  His  life  iuto  the  second, 
assures  us  of  this.  The  new  trial  He  is  now  to  undergo  belongs  to  a  higher  domain 
— that  of  the  spiritual  life.  It  no  longer  respects  the  powers  of  the  natural  man,  but 
His  filial  position,  and  the  supernatural  powers  just  conferred  upon  Him  at  His  bap- 
tism. Tiie  powers  of  the  iSpirit  are  in  themselves  holy,  but  the  history  of  the  church 
of  Corinth  shows  how  they  may  be  profaned  when  used  in  the  service  of  egotism  and 
self-love  (1  Cor,  12-14).  This  is  that  filthiness  of  the  spirit  (2  Cor.  7  :  1).  which  is 
more  subtle,  and  often  more  pernicious,  than  that  of  the  flesh.  The  divine  powers 
which  Jesus  had  just  received  had  therefore  to  be  sanctified  in  His  crxperience,  that 
IS,  to  receive  from  Him,  in  His  inmost  soul,  their  consecration  to  the  service  of  God. 
In  order  to  this,  it  was  necessary  that  an  opportunity  to  apply  them  either  to  His  own 
use  or  to  God's  service  should  be  offered  Him.  His  decision  on  this  criticai  occasion 
would  determine  forever  the  tendency  and  nature  of  His  Messianic  w^ork.  Christ  or 
Antichrist  was  the  alternative  terra  of  the  two  ways  which  were  opening  before  Him. 
This  trial  is  not  therefore  a  repetition  of  that  of  Adam,  the  father  of  the  old  humanity; 
it  is  the  special  trial  of  tiie  Head  of  the  new  humanity.  And  it  is  not  simpl}^  a  ques- 
tion here,  as  in  our  conflicts,  whether  a  given  individual  shall  form  part  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  ,  it  is  the  very  existence  of  this  kingdom  that  is  at  stake.  Its  future 
sovereign,  sent  to  found  it,  struggles  in  close  combat  with  the  sovereign  of  the 
hostile  realm. 

This  narrative  comprises  ■  1st.  A  general  view  (vers.  1,2):  2d.  The  first  temptation 
(vers.  3,  4)  ;  3d.  The  second  (vers.  5-8) ;  4^/t.  The  third  (vers.  9-12)  ;  5th.  An  his- 
torical conclusion  (ver.  13). 

Fii'st.  Vers.  1,  2.*  B^'  these  words,  full  of  the  Holy  Oliost,  this  narrative  is 
brought  iuto  close  connection  with  that  of  the  baptism.  The  genealogy  is  therefore 
intercalated.  While  the  other  baptized  persons,  after  the  ceremony,  went  away  to 
tlicir  own  homes,  .lesus  betook  Himself  into  solitude.  This  He  did  not  at  His  own 
prompting,  as  Luke  gives  us  to  understand,  by  the  expression  full  of  tlie  Holy  Ohost, 
which  proves  that  the  Spirit  directed  Him  in  this,  as  in  every  other  step.  The  two 
other  evanjielists  explicitly  say  it.  Matthew,  He  was  led  tq)  of  the  Spirit;  Mark,  still 
more  forcibly.  Immediately  the  Spirit  driveth  Him  into  the  wilderness.  Perhaps  the 
human  inclination  of  Jesus  would  have  been  to  return  to  Galilee  and  begin  at  once  to 
teach.  The  Spirit  detains  Him  ;  and  Matthew,  who,  in  accordance  with  his  didactic 
aim,  in  narrating  the  fact  explains  its  object,  says  expressly  •  "  He  was  led  up  of  the 
Spirit  ...  to  be  templed."  The  complement  of  the  verb  retur?ied  wouhl  hti  : 
from  the  Jordan  (am))  into  Galilee  («?).  But  this  com[)lex  government  is  so  dis- 
tributed that  the  first  part  is  found  in  ver.  1  (the  arrd  without  the  eli,  and  the  second 
in  ver.  14  (the  e'li  without  the  aiirO).  The  explanation  of  this  construction  is.  that  the 
temptation  was  an  interruption  in  the  return  of  Jesus  from  the  Jordan  into  Galilee. 
The  Spirit  detained  Him  in  Juda?a.  The  T.  R.  reads  els,  "  led  into  the  wilderness  ;" 
the  Alex,  iv,  "led  (carried  hither  and  thither)  in  the  wilderness."  We  might  sup- 
pose that  this  second  reading  was  only  the  result  of  the  very  natural  reflection  that. 
John  being  already  in  the  desert,  Jesus  had  not  to  repair  thither.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,   the    received    reading  may    easily    have  l)een    imported    into    Luke 

*  Ver.  1.  !!*  B.  D.  L.  If^'i.,  ei  rr]  eprjua  instead  of  el<=  ttjv  spriiiov,  the  reading  of 
T.  R.  witii  15  Mjj.,  all  the  Mnn.  Syr.  Il''"i.  Vg.  Ver.  2.  The  same  omit  varepov 
(taken  from  Matthew.) 


CHAP.  IV.  :  1,  2.  135 

from  the  two  other  Syn.  And  the  prep,  of  rest  {a>)  in  the  Alex,  better 
uccords  with  the  imperf.  j'/yero,  wasted,  which  denotes  a  continuous  acti')u.  The  ex- 
pression, u>as  led  by,  indicates  that  the  severe  exercises  of  soul  which  Jesus  experienced 
under  the  action  of  the  Spirit  absorbed  Him  in  such  a  way  that  the  use  of  His 
faculties  iu  regard  to  the  external  world  was  thereby  suspended.  In  going  into  the 
desert  He  was  not  impelled  by  a  desire  to  accomplish  any  definite  object;  it  was 
only,  as  it  were,  a  cover  for  the  state  of  intense  meditation  in  whiclillewas  absorbed. 
Lost  iu  contemplation  of  His  personal  relation  to  God,  the  full  consciousness  of  whicli 
He  had  just  attained,  and  of  the  consc(iuent  task  it  imposed  upon  Him  iu  reference 
to  Israel  and  the  world,  His  heart  sought  to  make  these  recent  revelations  wlioll}'  its 
own.  If  tradition  is  to  be  credited,  the  wilderness  here  spoken  of  was  the  mountain- 
ous and  uninhabited  country  bordering  on  the  road  which  ascends  from  Jericho  to 
Jerusalem.  On  the  right  of  this  road,  not  far  from  Jericho,  tliere  rises  a  limestone 
peak,  exceedingly  sharp  and  abrupt,  which  bears  the  name  of  Quarantania.  The 
rocks  which  surround  it  are  pierced  bj'^  a  numl)er  of  caves.  This  would  be  the  scene 
of  the  temptation.  We  are  ignorant  whether  this  tradition  rests  upon  any  historical 
fact.     This  locality  is  a  continuation  of  the  desert  of  Judoea,  where  John  abode. 

The  wordi  forty  days  may  refer  either  to  icas  led  or  to  being  temjited  ;  in  sense  both 
come  to  the  same  thing,  the  two  actions  being  simultaneous.  According  to  Luke 
and  Mark,  Jesus  was  incessantly  besieged  during  this  whole  time.  Suggestions  of  a 
very  different  nature  from  the  holy  thoughts  which  usually  occupied  Him  harassed 
the  woi  king  of  His  mind.  Matthew  does  not  mention  this  secret  action  of  the  cuemj', 
who  was  preparing  for  the  final  crisis.  How  can  it  be  maintained  that  one  of  these 
forms  of  the  narrative  has  bi-en  borrowed  from  the  other? 

The  term  devil,  employed  by  Luke  and  Matthew,  comes  from  (Va(iuTAiiv,  to  spread 
reports,  to  slander.  ]\[ark  employs  the  word  Sntau  (from  lt2Il/>  ''^  oppose  ;  Zeeh.  ;'.  :  1, 
2  ;  Job  I  :  6,  etc.).  The  fiist  of  these  names  is  taken  from  the  relation  of  tliis  being 
to  men  ;  the  second  from  his  relations  with  God. 

The  possibilily  of  the  existence  of  moral  beings  of  a  different  nature  from  that  of 
man  cannot  be  denied  a  priori.  Now  if  these  Iieings  are  free  crentures,  subject  to  a 
la.v  of  prol)alion,  as  little  can  it  be  denied  that  this  probation  might  issue  in  a  fall. 
Lastly,  since  in  every  societ}^  of  ra  iral  beings  there  are  eminent  individuals  who,  by 
virtue  of  their  ascendency,  liecoine  centres  around  which  a  host  of  iufeiior  individuals 
group  themselves,  this  may  also  l)c  the  case  iu  this  unknown  spiritual  domain.  Keim 
himself  says  :  "  We  regard  this  question  of  the  existence  of  an  evil  power  as  al- 
together an  open  question  for  science."  This  question,  which  is  an  open  one  from  a 
scientific  point  of  view,  is  settled  in  the  view  of  faith  by  the  testimony  of  the  Saviour, 
who,  in  a  passage  in  which  there  is  not  the  slii^htest  trace  of  accommodation  to 
popular  prejudice,  John  8  :  44,  delineates  in  a  few  graphic  touches  tlie  moral  position 
of  Satan.  In  another  pas-^agu,  Luke  2'^.  :  ;J1,  "  Satan  hatli  desired  to  have  you,  that 
he  may  sift  you  as  wheat  ;  but  I  have  praye<l  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not,"  Jesus 
lifts  the  veil  which  hides  from  us  the  scenes  of  the  invisible  world,  the  relation 
which  He  maintains  between  the  accuser  Satan,  and  Himself  the  intercessor,  impUe'5 
that  in  His  eyes  this  personage  is  no  less  a  personal  being  than  Himself.  The  part 
sustained  by  this  being  iu  the  temptation  of  Jesus  is  attested  by  the  passage,  Luke 
11  :  21,  22.  It  was  necessary  that  the  strong  man,  Satan,  the  prince  of  this  world, 
should  be  vanquished  by  his  adversary,  the  stronger  tlian  he,  in  a  personal  (■r)nflict, 
for  tiie  latter  to  he  ablfc  to  set  about  spriiling  the  world,  which  is  Satan's  stronghold. 
Weizsacker  and  Keim  *  acknowledge  an  allusion  in  this  ))assage  1<>  ihe  fact  of  the 
temiUation.  It  is  tliis  victory  in  single  combat  whicli  makes  the  deliverance  of  every 
captive  of  Satan  possible  to  Jesus. 

*  "  Uulersuch  "  p.  330  ;  "  Oescli.  Jcsu,"  t.  1.  p.  570. 


136  ,       COMMENTAEY   OX   ST.  LUKE. 

Luke  mentions  Jesus'  abstinence  from  food  for  six  weeks  as  a  fact  wliicb  was  only 
the  natural  consequence  of  His  bein^  absorbed  in  profound  meditation.  To  Him, 
indeed,  this  whole  time  passed  like  a  single  hour  ;  He  did  not  even  feel  the  pangs  of 
hunger.  This  follows  from  the  words  :  '  And  when  they  were  ended,  He  afterward 
hungered,"  By  the  terui  vr/arevaas,  having  faded,  Matthew  appears  to  eive  this  ab- 
stinence the  character  of  a  deliberate  ritual  act,  to  make  it  such  a  fast  as,  among  the 
Jews,  ordinarily  accompanied  certain  seasons  devoted  specially  to  prayer.  This 
Bhade  of  thouglit  is  not  a  contradiction,  but  accords  with  the  general  character  of  the 
two  narrations,  and  becomes  a  significant  indication  of  their  originality.  The  fasts 
of  Moses  and  Elijah,  in  similar  circumstances,  lasted  the  same  time.  In  certain  mor- 
bid conditions,  which  involve  a  more  or  less  entire  abstinence  from  food,  a  period  of 
six  weeks  generally  brings  about  a  crisis,  after  which  the  demand  for  nourishment  is 
renewed  with  extreme  urgency.  Tiic  exhausted  body  liecomes  a  prey  to  a  deathly 
sinking.  Such,  doubtless,  was  the  condition  of  Jesus  ;  He  felt  Himself  dying.  It 
was  the  moment  tlie  tempter  had  waited  for  to  make  his  decisive  assault. 

/Second.  Vers.  3,  4.*  First  Temptation.— The  text  of  Luke  is  very  sober  :  The 
devil  mid  to  llim.  The  encounter  exhibited  under  this  form  may  be  explained  as  a 
contact  of  mind  with  mind  ;  but  in  Matthew  the  expression  came  to  Him  seems  to 
imply  a  bodily  appearance.  This,  however,  is  nut  necessarily  its  meaning.  This 
term  may  be  regarded  as  a  symbolical  expression  of  the  moral  sensation  experienced 
by  Jesus  at  the  moment  when  He  felt  the  attack  of  this  spirit  so  alien  from  His  own. 
In  this  sense,  the  coming  took  place  only  in  the  spiritual  sphere.  Since  Scripture 
does  not  mention  any  visible  appearance  of  Satan,  and  as  the  angelophauies  are  facts 
the  perception  of  which  always  implies  a  co-operation  of  the  inner  sense,  the  latter 
interpretaiion  is  more  natural.  The  words,  if  thou  art,  express  something  very 
different  from  a  doubt  ;  this  if  has  almost  the  force  of  since  :  "  If  thou  art  really,  as 
it  seems  .  .  ."  Satan  alludes  to  God's  salutation  at  the  baptism.  M.  de  Pres- 
sense  is  wrong  in  paraphrasing  the  words  :  "  If  thou  art  the  Messiah."  Here,  and 
invariably,  the  name  Son  of  Ood  refers  to  a  personal  relation,  not  to  an  office  (see  on 
ver.  33).  But  what  criminality  would  there  have  been  in  the  act  suggested  to  Jesus  V 
It  has  been  said  that  He  was  not  allowed  to  use  His  miraculous  imwer  for  His  own 
benefit.  Why  not,  if  He  was  allowed  to  use  it  for  the  benefit  of  others  ?  The  moral 
law  does  not  command  that  one  should  love  his  neighbor  belter  than  himself.  It 
has  been  said  that  He  would  have  acted  from  His  own  will,  God  not  having  com- 
manded this  miracle.  But  did  God  direct  every  act  of  Jesus  by  means  of  a  positive 
command  V  Had  not  divine  direction  in  -lesus  a  more  spiritual  character  ?  Satan's 
address  and  the  answer  of  Jesus  put  us  on  the  right  track.  In  saying  to  Him,  If 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  Satan  seeks  to  arouse  in  His  heart  the  feeling  of  His  divine 
greatness  ;  and  with  what  object?  He  wishes  by  this  means  to  make  Him  feel  more 
painfully  the  contrast  between  His  actual  destitution,  consequent  on  His  human  con- 
dition, and  the  abundance  to  which  His  divine  nature  seems  to  give  Him  a  light. 
There  was  indeed,  especially  after  His  baptism,  an  anomaly  in  the  position  of  Jesus. 
On  the  one  hand,  He  had  been  exalted  to  a  distinct  consciimsness  of  His  dignity  as 
the  Son  of  God  ;  while,  on  the  other,  His  condition  as  Son  of  man  remained  the 
same.     He  conlitmed  this  mode  of  existence  wholly  similar  to  ours,  and  whr.Uy 

*  Ver.  4.  5^.  B.  L.  omit  Iejuv.  9  Mjj.  70  Mnn.  Or.  omit  o  before  avf)pcjTro<:.  i^. 
B.  L.  Cop.  omit  the  words,  aAX'  em  nov-L  rrj/ian  Oaov.  which  is  the  reading  of  1 .  R. 
with  15  Mjj.,  all  the  Mnn.  Syr.  It,.  Vg.  (taktn  from  Matthew). 


CHAP.  IV.  :  3-8.  137 

depcnrlcnt,  in  which  furm  it  was  IIi:<  mission  to  rciilize  licrc  below  the  fihal  life. 
Tlience  there  necessarily  resulted  a  constant  temptation  to  elevate,  by  acts  of  power. 
His  miserable  condition  to  the  height  of  Ills  conscious  Sunship.  And  this  is  the  first 
point  of  attack  by  which  Satan  seeks  to  master  His  will,  taking  advantage  for  this 
purj^ose  of  the  utter  exhaustion  in  which  he  sees  Him  sinking.  HadJtsus  yielded  to 
this  suggestion.  He  would  have  violated  the  conditions  of  that  earthly  existence  to 
which,  out  of  love  to  us.  He  had  sulimittod,  denied  His  title  as  Son  of  man,  in  order 
to  lealizo  before  the  time  His  condition  as  Son  of  God,  retracted  in  some  sort  the  act 
of  His  incarnation,  and  entered  upon  that  falsH  path  which  was  afterward  formulated 
by  docetisni  in  a  total  or  partial  denial  of  Christ  come  in  the  llesh.  Such  a  course 
would  have  mado  His  humanity  a  mere  appearance. 

This  is  precisely  what  is  expressed  in  His  answer.  The  word  of  holy  writ,  Deut. 
8  :  3,  in  which  He  clothes  His  thought,  is  admirably  adapted,  both  in  form  and  sub- 
stance, to  this  purpose  :  man  shall  not  live  hybnad  alone.  This  term,  man,  recalls  to 
Satan  the  form  of  existence  which  Jesus  has  accepted,  and  fnmi  which  He  cannot 
depart  on  His  own  lesponsibility.  The  omission,  of  the  article  6  before  uiOpwTroS  in 
nine  ^Ijj.  gives  this  word  a  generi(j  sense  which  suits  the  context.  But  Jesus,  while 
thus  asserting  His  entire  acceptance  of  human  nature,  reminds  Satan  that  man, 
though  he  be  but  man,  is  not  left  without  divine  succor.  The  experience  of  Isiael 
in  the  wilderness,  to  which  Closes'  words  refer,  proves  that  the  action  of  divine 
power  is  not  limited  to  the  ordinary  nourishment  of  bread.  God  can  support  huuKin 
existence  by  other  mateiial  means,  such  as  manna  and  quails  ;  He  can  even,  if  He 
pleases,  make  a  man  live  by  the  mere  power  of  His  will.  This  ijrinciple  is  only  the 
a|)plication  of  a  living  monotheism  to  the  sphere  of  physical  life.  By  proclaiming 
it  in  this  particular  instance,  Jesus  declares  that,  in  His  career,  no  physical  necessity 
shall  ever  ct)mpel  Him  to  deny,  in  the  name  of  His  exalted  Sonship,  the  humble 
mode  of  existence  He  adopted  in  making  Himself  man,  until  it  shall  please  God  Him- 
self to  transform  His  condition  by  rendering  it  suitable  to  His  essence  as  Son  of  God. 
Although  Son.  He  will  nevertheless  remain  subject,  subject  unto  the  weakness  even 
of  death  (Heb.  5  :  8).  The  words,  hut  hi/  every  word  of  God,  are  omilled  by  the  Alex.  ; 
they  are  piobably  taken  from  ]\Iatthew.  What  reason  could  there  have  been  for 
omitting  them  from  the  text  of  Luke  ?  By  their  suppression,  the  answer  of  Jesus 
assumes  that  brief  and  categorical  character  which  agrees  with  the  situation.  The 
sending  of  the  angels  to  minister  to  Jesus,  which  Miitthew  and  Maik  mention  at  the 
close  of  their  narrative,  pioves  that  the  expectation  of  Jesus  was  not  disappointed  ; 
God  sustained  Him,  as  He  had  sustained  Elijah  in  the  desert  in  similar  circum- 
stances (1  Kings  10). 

The  fir.st  temptation  refers  to  the  person  of  Jesus  ;  the  second,  to  His  work. 

Third.  Vers.  .5-8.*  Second  Temptation— The  occasion  of  this  fresh  trial  is  not 
a  physical  .sensation  ;  it  is  an  aspiration  of  the  soul.  Man,  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  aspires  to  reign.  This  instinct,  the  direction  of  which  is  perverted  by  selfish- 
ness, is  nonetheless  legitimate  in  its  origin.  Itrcceivedin  Israel,  through  the  divine 
promises,   a  definite  aim — the  supremacy  of  the  elect  people  over  all  otheis  ;  and 

*  Ver.  5.  !!i.  B.  D.  L.  some  ^Vlnn.  omit  o  f5;o 9o?iOf.  ii.  B.  L.  It""'',  omit  e<?  ttiio, 
ml'Tj/ov,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  14  Mjj.  the  Mnn.  Syr.  lt""i.  Ver.  7.  All 
tlie  Mjj.  read  -aan  instead  of  Traira.  the  leading  of  T.  R.  with  only  some  Mnn.  Ver. 
8.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  Iipi"iq"<',  Vir  omit  the  words  vKuye  oTtiaui  nov 
larai-a.     Taj),  in  the  T.  K. ,  has  in  its  favor  only  U.  Wb.  A.  A. 


138  COM.ME^■^ARY    ox    ST.   LUKE. 

a  very  precise  form— the  Messianic  hope.  Tlie  patriotism  of  Jesus  was  kindled  at 
this  fire  (ly  :  34,  19  :  41)  ;  and  He  must  have  linown,  from  what  He  had  heard  from 
the  mouth  of  God  at  His  baptism,  that  it  was  He  who  was  destined  to  realize  this 
magnificent  expectation.  It  is  this  prospect,  open  before  the  2;aze  of  Jesus,  of  which 
Satan  avails  himself  in  trying  to  fascinate  and  seduce  Him  into  a  false  way.  The 
words  the  devil,  and  into  an  Idghmounlain,  ver.  5,  are  omitted  by  the  Alex.  It  might 
be  supposed  that  this  omission  arises  from  the  ccmfusion  of  the  two  syllables ov  which 
terminate  the  words  avrov  and  v^jnj/.ov.  But  is  it  not  easier  to  believe  tlieie  has  been 
an  interpolation  from  Matthew  ?  In  this  case,  the  complement  understood  to  taking 
Him  up,  in  Luke,  might  doubtless  be,  as  in  Matthew,  a  mountain.  Still,  where  n^) 
complement  is  expressed,  it  is  more  natural  to  explain  it  as  "  taking  Him  into  the 
air,"  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  difference  between  the  two  evangelists  is  con- 
uected  with  the  different  order  in  which  they  arrange  the  two  last  temptaliuus.  lu 
Luke,  Satan,  after  having  taken  Jesus  up  into  the  air,  set  Him  down  on  a  pinnacle  of 
the  temple.  This  order  is  natural.  We  are  asked  how  Jesus  c  .uld  be  given  over  in 
this  way  to  the  disposal  of  Satan.  Our  reply  is  :  Since  the  Spirit  led  Him  into  the 
wilderness  in  order  that  He  might  be  tempted,  it  is  not  surprising  that  He  should  be 
given  up  for  a  time,  body  and  soul,  to  the  power  cf  the  tempter.  It  is  not  said  that 
Jesus  really  saw  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  which  would  be  absuid  ;  but  that 
Satan  showed  them  to  Him.  This  term  may  very  well  signify  tiiat  he  made  them 
appear  before  the  view  of  Jesus,  in  instant ane-ius  succession,  by  a  diabolical  phan- 
tasmagoria. He  had  seen  so  many  gieat  men  succumb  to  a  similar  mirage,  that  he 
might  well  Iiope  to  prevail  again  by  this  means.  The  Jewish  idea  of  Satan's  rule 
over  this  visible  wnrld,  expressed  iu  the  words  which  two  of  the  evangelists  put  into 
his  mouth,  may  not  be  so  destitute  of  foundation  as  many  think.  Has  not  Jesus  in- 
dorsed it,  by  calling  this  mysterious  being  the  prince  of  this  world?  Might  not  Salau, 
as  an  archangel,  liave  had  assigned  to  him  originally  as  his  domain  the  earth  and  the 
system  to  which  it  belongs  ?  In  this  case,  he  uttered  no  falsehood  when  he  said,  All 
this  power  has  been  delivered  untu  me  (ver.  G).  The  truth  of  this  asscition  appears 
further  from  this  ver}^  expression,  in  which  he  does  homage  to  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  and  acknowledges  himself  His  vassal.  Xeither  is  it  necessary  to  see  impotture 
in  the  words  :  And  to  whomsoever  I  wiU,  Igive  it.  God  certainly  leaves  to  Satan  a 
certtiin  use  of  His  sovereignty  anfl  powers  ;  he  reigns  over  the  wliole  extra-divine 
sphere  of  human  life,  and  has  power  to  raise  to  the  pinnacle  of  glory  the  man  whom 
he  favors.  The  majesty  of  such  language  was  doubtless  sustained  l)y  splendor  of 
appearance  on  the  pait  of  him  who  used  it  ;  and  if  ever  Satan  put  on  his  form  of  aa 
angel  of  light  (2  Coi*.  11  :  14),  it  was  at  this  moment  which  decided  his  cmiiire.  Tlie 
condition  which  he  attaches  to  the  surrender  of  his  power  into  the  hands  of  Jesus, 
ver.  7,  has  often  been  presented  as  a  snare  far  too  coarse  for  it  ever  to  have  been  laid 
by  such  a  crafty  spirit.  Would  mt,  indeed,  the  lowest  of  the  Israelites  have  rejected 
such  a  proposal  with  horror  ?  But  there  is  a  little  word  in  the  text  to  be  taken  into 
consideration — ovv,  therefore — which  puts  this  condition  in  Logical  connection  with 
the  preceding  woi'ds.  It  is  not  as  an  individual,  it  is  as  the  representative  of  divine 
authority  on  this  earth,  that  Satan  here  claims  the  homage  of  Jesus.  Tiie  act  of 
prostration,  iu  the  East,  is  practised  tnwaul  every  lawful  superior,  not  iu  virtue  of  , 
his  personal  character,  but  out  of  regard  to  the  portion  of  divine  power  of  which  he 
is  the  depositary.  For  behind  every  power  is  ever  seen  the  power  of  God,  from 
whom  it  emanates.     As  man,  Jesus  formed  part  of  the  domain  intrusted  to  Satan. 


ciiAi".    IV.  :  !!-!•>.  139 

As  called  to  succuid  him,  it  seemed  Ho  could  only  do  it,  in  so  far  as  Satan  himself 
should  Irunsfer  to  Him  the  investiture  of  ids  olfice.  The  words,  if  thou  wilt  wornhip 
vie,  are  uot  Ihe-efore  an  apptal  to  the  ambiliun  of  Jesus  ;  they  express  llie  condiliou 
sine  (jud  noil  laid  down  by  the  ancient  Master  of  the  world  to  the  iustalla'.ion  of  Jesus 
in  the  ^lessianic  sovereignty.  In  si)caking  thus,  Salan  deceived  himself  only  in  one 
point;  this  was,  that  the  kingdom  which  was  about  to  commence  was  in  any  lespect 
a  continuation  of  his  own,  or  depended  on  a  transmission  of  power  from  iiim.  It 
would  have  been  very  dilleient,  doubtless,  had  Jesus  proposed  to  realize  such  a  con- 
ception of  the  ^lessianic  kingdom  as  found  expression  in  tlie  popular  prejudice  of 
His  age.  The  Israelitish  numarchy,  thus  understood,  wotdd  really  have  been  only  a 
uew  and  transient  form  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan  on  this  earth— a  kingdom  of  exler- 
ual  foice,  a  kingdom  of  this  world.  But  what  Jesus  afterward  expressed  in  these 
words,  "  I  am  a  King  ;  to  this  end  was  I  born,  but  my  kingdom  is  uot  of  this  woild" 
(Jolin  18  :  37,  3G),  was  already  in  His  heart.  His  kingdom  was  the  beginning  of  a 
rule  of  an  entirely  new  nature  ;  or,  if  this  kingdom  had  an  antecedent,  it  was  that 
established  by  God  in  Zion  (Ps.  2).  Jesus  had  just  at  this  very  time  l)een  invesled 
with  this  at  the  hands  of  the  divine  delegate,  John  the  Baptist.  Therefore  He  had 
nothing  to  ask  from  batan,  and  consequently  no  homage  to  pay  him.  Tins  lefusal 
was  a  serious  matter.  Jesus  thereby  renounced  all  power  founded  upon  material 
means  and  social  institutions.  He  broke  with  the  Messianic  Jewish  ideal  under  fhe  re- 
ceived form.  He  conrined  Himself,  in  accomplishing  the  conquest  of  the  world,  to 
spiritual  action  exerted  upon  souls  ;  He  condemned  Himself  to  gain  them  one  by  one, 
by  the  labor  of  conversion  and  sanclification — a  gentle,  unostentatious  progress,  con- 
temptible in  the  eyes  of  the  tlesh,  of  which  the  end,  the  visible  reign,  was  only  to 
appear  after  the  lapse  of  centuries.  Further,  such  an  answer  was  a  declaration  of 
war  against  Satan,  and  on  the  most  unfavorable  conditions.  Jesus  condemned  Him- 
self to  struggle,  unaided  by  human  power,  with  an  adversary  having  at  his  disposal 
all  human  powers  ;  to  march  with  ten  thousand  nren  against  a  king  who  was  coming 
against  Him  with  twenty  thousand  (14  :  31).  Death  inevitably  awaited  Him  in  this 
path.  But  He  uuhesitalingl}'  accepted  all  this,  that  He  miglit  remain  faithful  to  God, 
from  whom  alone  He  delernuned  to  receive  everything.  To  render  homage  to  a  be- 
ing who  had  broken  with  God,  would  be  to  honor  him  in  his  guilt}-  usurpation,  to 
associate  Himself  with  his  rebellion.  This  time  again  Jesus  conveys  His  refusal  in  a 
passage  of  holy  writ,  Deut.  G  :  13  ;  He  thereby  removes  every  appearance  of  answer- 
ing him  on  mere  human  authority.  The  Hebrew  text  and  the  LXX.  merely  say  : 
"  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord,  and  thou  shalt  serve  Him."  But  it  is  obvious  that  this 
word  serve  includes  adoration,  and  therefore  the  act  of  -fioaKwelv,  falling  (hnrn  in  xcor- 
ship,  by  which  it  is  expressed.  The  words,  Get  tliee  behind  me,  Satan,  in  Luke,  are 
taken  from  Matthew  ;  so  is  {ho  for  in  the  next  sentence.  But  in  thus  determining  to 
establish  His  kingdom  without  any  aid  from  material  force,  was  uoi  Jesus  relying  so 
much  the  more  on  a  free  use  of  the  supernatural  powers  with  which  He  had  just  been 
endowed,  in  order  to  overcome,  by  great  miraculous  efforts,  theobstac;es  and  dangers 
to  be  encountered  in  the  path  He  had  chosen?  This  is  the  point  on  which  Satan 
puts  Jesus  to  a  last  proof.  The  third  temptation  then  refers  to  the  use  which  He  in- 
tends to  make  of  divine  power  in  the  course  of  His  ]\Iessiauic  career. 

Fourth.  Vers.  0-13.*    Third  Temptation. — This  trial  belongs  to  a  higher  sphere 

*  Vcr.  9.  The  o  before  vior  in  the  T.  R.  is  onuttcd  in  all  theMjj.  and  in  loO  Man. 


1-iO  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUXE. 

than  that  of  pliysical  or  political  life.  It  is  of  a  pureij^  religious  character,  and 
touches  the  deepest  uud  most  sacred  relations  of  Jesus  with  His  Father.  The  dignity 
of  a  son  of  God,  \vi(h  a  view  to  which  man  was  created,  carries  with  it  the  free  dis- 
posal of  divine  power,  aud  of  the  motive  forces  of  the  universe.  Does  not  God  Himself 
say  to  His  child:  "Son,  thou  ait  ever  with  me,  and  all  that  1  have  is  thine"  ? 
(J5:31).  But  in  proportion  as  man  is  raised  to  this  filial  position,  and  gradually 
reaches  divine  fellowship,  there  arises  out  of  this  state  an  ever-increasing  danger— 
that  of  abusing  his  great  privilege,  by  changing,  as  an  indiscreet  inferior  is  tempted 
to  do,  this  fellowship  into  familiarity.  From  this  giddy  height  to  which  the  grace  of 
God  has  raised  him,  man  falls,  therefore,  in  an  instant  into  the  deepest  abyss— into  a 
presumptuous  use  of  God's  gifts  and  abuse  of  His  confidence.  This  pride  is  more 
unpardonable  than  that  culled  in  Sciipture  the  pride  of  life.  The  abuse  of  God's 
help  is  a  more  serious  offence  than  not  waiting  for  it  in  faith  (first  temptation),  or 
than  regarding  it  as  insutficient  (second  temptation).  The  higher  sphere  to  which 
this  trial  belongs  is  indicated  by  the  scene  of  it— the  most  sacred  place,  Jefusalein 
(the  holy  city,  as  Matthew  says)  and  the  temple.  The  term  Trrepvyiou  tov  iepov,  trans- 
lated ^J-i/wutcfc  of  the  temple,  might  denote  the  anterior  extremity  of  the  line  of  meeting 
of  two  inclined  planes,  forming  the  roof  of  the  sacred  edifice.  But  in  this  case,  vaov 
would  have  been  required  rather  than  lepov  (see  1  :  9).  Probably,  theiefore,  it  is  son^e 
part  of  the  court  that  is  meant — either  Solomon's  Porch,  which  was  situated  on  the 
eastern  side  of  the  temple  platform,  and  commanded  the  gorge  of  the  Kedrou,  or  the 
Rnyal  Porch,  built  on  the  south  side  of  this  platform,  aud  from  which,  as  Josephus 
says,  the  eye  looked  down  into  an  abyss.  The  word  Tivepvyiov  would  denole  tlie 
coping  of  this  peristyle.  Such  a  position  is  a  type  of  the  sublime  height  (o  which 
Satan  sees  Jesus  raised,  and  whence  he  would  have  Him  cast  Himself  down  into  an 
abyss. 

The  idea  of  this  incomparable  spiritual  elevation  is  expressed  by  these  words  :  Jf 
thou  art  a  Son  of  God.  The  Alex,  rightly  omit  the  art.  before  the  word  Son.  For 
it  is  a  question  here  of  the  filial  character,  and  not  of  the  personality  of  the  Son. 
"  If  thou  art  a  being  to  whom  it  appertains  to  call  God  thy  Father  in  a  unique  sense, 
do  not  fear  to  do  a  daring  deed,  and  give  God  an  op[)ortunily  to  show  the  particular 
care  He  takes  of  thee."  And  as  Satan  had  observed  that  Jesus  had  twice  replied  to 
him  by  the  word  of  God,  he  tries  in  his  turn  to  avail  himself  of  this  weapon.  He 
applies  here  the  promise  (Ps.  91  :  11,  12)  by  an  a  fortiori  argument  :  "  If  God  has 
promised  thus  to  keep  the  righteous,  how  much  more  His  well-beloved  Son  !"  The 
quotation  agrees  with  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  with  the  exception  of  its  omitting  the 
words  in  all  thy  tonys,  which  Matthew  also  omits  ;  the  latter  omits,  besides,  the  pre- 
ceding words,  to  keep  thee.  It  has  been  tliought  that  this  omission  Avas  made  by 
Satan  himself,  who  would  suppress  these  words  with  a  view  to  make  the  application 
of  the  passage  more  plausible,  undulj'^  generalizing  the  promise  of  the  Psalm,  which, 
according  to  the  context,  applies  to  the  righteous  only  in  so  far  as  he  walks  in  the 
ways  of  obedience.  This  is  very  subtle.  What  was  the  real  bearing  of  this  temp- 
tation ?  With  God,  power  is  always  employed  in  the  service  of  goodness,  of  love  ; 
this  is  the  difference  between  God  and  Satan,  between  divine  miracle  and  diabolical 
sorcery.  Now  the  devil  in  this  instance  aims  at  nothing  less  than  making  Jesus  pass 
from  one  of  these  spheres  to  the  other,  aud  this  in  the  name  of  that  most  sacred  and 
tender  element  in  the  relationship  between  two  beings  that  love  each  other — con- 
fidence.    If  Jesus  succumbs  to  the  temptation  by  calling  on  the  Ahnighty  to  deliver 


CiiAi".    IV.  :  U,  i;5,  J  11 

Ilim  from  a  peril  into  which  lie  has  not  been  thrown  in  the  service  of  gooducss,  He 
jviits  ({n(i  in  the  position  of  either  refusing  His  Jiul.  and  so  separating  His  cause  from 
His  own — a  divorce  between  the  Father  and  the  Sou — or  of  setting  free  the  exercise 
of  His  omnipotence,  at  least  lor  a  moment,  from  the  control  of  holiuess — a  violation 
of  His  own  nature.  Either  way,  it  would  be  all  over  with  Jesus,  and  even,  if  we 
dare  so  speak,  with  God. 

Jesus  characterizes  the  impious  nature  of  this  suggestion  as  tempting  Ood,  ver.  13. 
This  term  signifies  putting  God  to  the  alternative  either  of  acting  in  a  way  opposed 
to  His  plans  or  His  nature,  or  of  compromising  the  existence  or  safety  of  a  person 
closely  allied  to  Him.  It  is  confidence  carried  to  such  presumption,  as  to  become 
treason  against  the  divine  majesty.  It  has  sometimes  been  thought  that  Satan  wanted 
to  induce  Jesus  to  estaiilish  His  kingdom  by  some  miraculous  demonstration,  by  some 
prodigy  of  personal  ilisiilaj',  which,  accomplished  in  the  view  uf  a  multitude  of  wor- 
shippers assembled  in  the  temple,  would  have  drawn  to  Him  the  homage  of  all  Israel. 
But  the  narrative  makes  no  ailusion  to  any  elfect  to  be  produced  by  this  miracle.  It 
is  a  question  heie  of  a  whim  rather  than  of  a  calculation,  of  divine  force  placed  at 
the  service  of  caprice  rather  than  of  a  deliberate  evil  purpose.  For  the  thiid  time 
Jesus  borrows  the  foim  of  His  repl}'  from  Scripture,  aud,  which  is  lemarkable,  again 
from  Deuteronomy  (6  :  16).  This  book,  which  recorded  the  experience  of  Israel  dur- 
ing the  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the  desert,  had  perhaps  been  the  special  subject  of 
Jesus'  meditations  during  His  own  sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  The  plural,  ye  shall 
not  tempt,  iu  the  O.  T.  is  changed  bj''  Jesus  into  the  singular,  thou  shalt  vot  tempt. 
Did  this  change  proceed  from  a  double  meanmg  which  Jesus  designedly  introduced 
into  this  passage ?  While  ap])]j'ing  it  to  Himself  in  His  relation  to  God,  He  ."^eems, 
in  fact,  to  apply  it  at  the  same  time  to  Satan  iu  relation  to  Himself  ;  as  if  He  meant 
to  say  :  Desist,  therefore,  now  from  templing  me,  thy  God. 

Almost  all  interpreters  at  the  present  day  disapprove  the  order  followed  by  Luke, 
and  prefer  Matthew's,  who  makes  this  last  temptation  the  second.  It  seems  to  me, 
that  if  the  explanation  we  have  just  given  is  just,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Luke's 
order  is  preferable.  The  man  who  is  no  longer  man,  the  Christ  who  is  no  longer 
Christ,  the  Son  who  is  no  longer  Son — such  are  the  three  degrees  of  the  temptation.* 
The  second  might  appear  the  most  exalted  and  dangerous  to  men  who  had  grown  up 
iu  the  midst  of  the  theocracy;  and  it  is  intelligible  that  the  tradition  found  in  the 
Jewish-Christian  churches,  the  type  of  which  has  been  preserved  in  the  first  Gospel, 
should  have  made  this  peculiarly  Me.ssianic  temptation  (the  second  in  Luke)  tiie 
crowning  effort  of  the  confiica.  But  in  reality  it  was  not  so  ;  the  true  order  his- 
torically, in  a  moral  conflict,  must  be  that  which  answers  to  the  moral  es.sence  of 
things. 

Fifth.  Ver.  13.  Historical  Conclusion. — The  expression  ndvra  TrEipaaiiov  does  not 
signify  all  the  temptation  (this  would  require  tj'kov),  but  every  kind  of  temptation. 
"We  have  seen  that  the  temptations  mentioned  refer,  one  to  the  person  of  Jesus, 
another  to  the  nature  of  His  work,  the  third  to  His  u.se  of  the  divine  aid  accorded  to 
Him  for  this  work  ;  they  are  therefore  very  varied.  Further,  connected  as  they  are, 
they  form  a  complete  cycle  ;  and  this  is  expressed  in  the  term  avvTE~Acaa<^,  hnving 
finished,  fulfdled.     Nevertheless  Luke  announces,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  narrative, 

*  [M.  Godet  is  not  as  perspicuous  here  as  usual.  The  original  is  :  "  L'honime 
(pii  n'est  plus  homme,  le  Christ  qui  n'est  plus  Christ,  le  Fils  qui  n'est  plus  Fiis, 
Yoila     .     .     ."] 


142  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE, 

the  future  return  of  Satan  to  subject  Jesus  to  a  fresh  trial.  If  the  words  uxpi  Knipov 
signified,  us  they  are  often  translated,  for  a  season,  we  might  think  that  this  future 
temptation  denotes  in  general  the  trials  to  which  Jesus  would  be  exposed  during  the 
course  of  His  ministry.  But  these  words  signify,  nntil  a  favorable  time.  Satan  ex- 
pects, therefore,  some  new  opportunity,  just  such  a  special  occasion  as  the  previous 
one.  This  conflict,  foretold  so  precisely,  can  be  none  other  than  that  of  Getbsemane. 
"  This  is  the  hour  and  power  of  darkness,"  said  Jesus  at  that  very  time  (22  :  53) ; 
and  a  few  moments  before,  according  to  John  (14  :  30),  He  had  said  :  "  The  prince 
of  this  world  comelh."  Satan  then  found  a  new  means  of  acting  on  the  soul  of 
Jesus,  through  the  fear  of  suffering.  Just  as  in  the  desert  he  thought  he  could  dazzle 
this  heart,  that  had  had  no  experience  of  life,  with  the  eclat  of  success  and  the  in- 
toxication of  delight  ;  so  in  Gethsemane  he  tried  to  make  it  swerve  by  the  nightmare 
of  punishment  and  the  anguish  of  grief.  These,  indeed,  are  the  two  levers  by  whicli 
he  succeeds  in  throwing  men  out  of  the  path  of  obedience. 

Luke  omits  here  the  fact  mentioned  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  of  the  approach  of 
angels  to  minister  to  Jesus.  It  is  no  dogmatic  repugnance  which  makes  him  omit  it, 
foi'  he  mentions  an  instance  whollj''  similar,  23  :  43.  Therefore  he  was  ignorant  of 
it ;  and  consequently  he  was  not  acquainted  with  the  two  other  narratives. 

THE  TEMPTATION. 

We  shall  examine — 1st.  The  nature  of  this  fact ;  2d.  Its  object ;  M.  The  three 
narratives. 

1st.  JSature  of  tlie  Temptation. — The  ancients  generally  understood  this  account 
liierally.  They  l)elieved  that  the  devil  appealed  to  Jesus  in  a  bodily  form,  and  actually 
carried  Him  away  to  the  mountain  and  to  the  pinnacle  of  Ihe  temple.  But,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  impossibility  of  finding  imywhere  a  mountain  from  which  all  the  king- 
doms of  the  world  could  be  seen,  the  Bible  does  not  meniion  a  single  visible  appear- 
ance of  Satan  ;  and  in  the  conflict  of  Gethsemane,  which,  according  to  liuke,  is  a 
lenewal  of  this,  the  piesence  of  the  enemy  is  not  projected  into  the  world  of  sense. 
Have  we  to  do  then  liere,  as  some  moderns  have  thought,  with  a  human  tempter  des- 
ignated metaphorically  by  the  name  Satan,  in  the  sen.'te  in  which  Jesus  addies;  ed 
Peter,  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  with  an  envoj^  f rom  the  Sandedrim,  ex  (jr.,  who 
h:id  come  to  lest  Him  (Kuinoel),  or  with  tlie  deputation  from  the  same  body  men- 
tioned in  John  1  :  19,  et  seq.,  who,  on  their  return  from  their  interview  with  the  fore- 
runner, met  Jesus  in  the  desert,  and  there  besought  Plis  Messianic  co-operation,  by 
olferinir  Him  the  aid  of  the  .Jewish  authorities  (Lange)  ?  But  it  was  not  until  after 
Jesus  had  already  left  the  desert  and  rejoined  John  on  the  banks  of  the  Joidaii,  that 
lie  was  pul)licly  pointed  out  by  the  latter  as  the  Messiah.*  Up  to  this  lime  no  one 
knew  Him  as  such.  Besides,  if  this  hypothesis  affords  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
second  temptation  (in  the  order  of  Luke),  it  will  not  explain  either  the  first  or  the 
third. 

Was  this  narrative,  then,  originally  nothing  more  tlian  a  moral  lesson  conveyed 
in  the  form  of  a  parable,  in  which  .Jesus  inculcated  on  His  disciples  some  most  im- 
portant maxims  for  their  future  ministry  ?  Never  to  use  their,  miraculous  power  for 
their  personal  advantage,  never  to  associate  with  wicked  men  for  the  attainment  of 
good  ends,  never  to  perform  a  miracle  in  an  ostentatious  spirit — these  werethe  pre- 
cepts which  Jesus  had  enjoined  upon  them  in  a  figurative  manner,  but  which  they 
took  literally  (Schleiermacher,  Schweizer-,  Bleek).  But  first,  of  all,  is  it  conceivaMe 
that  Jesus  should  have  expressed  Himself  so  awkwardly  as  to  lead  to  such  a  mistake  ? 
Next,  how  could  He  have  spoken  to  the  apostles  of  an  external  empire  to  be  founded 
by  them?  Further,  the  Messianic  aspect,  so  conspicuous  in  the  second  temptation, 
is  completely  disguised  in  that  one  of  the  three  maxims  which,  according  to  the  ex- 

*  See  my  "  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,"  on  1  :  29. 


TllK    TKMI'l'Al'lDN.  14;} 

planntion  of  these  tlieologifins,  onsrlit  to  cnrrespond  wilh  it.  BaumgartenCniPius, 
in  order  to  iiu'i'l  this  last  objiclioii.  iipi)lR's  the  three  niaxinis,  not  to  tliat  from  wliich 
the  apostles  were  to  absliiin,  hut  to  lliat  wliich  the}'  must  not  expect  from  Jesus  Him- 
self :  "  As  Messiah.  Jesus  meant  tu  sa}',  I  sliall  not  seek  to  satisfy  your  sensual  ap- 
pelities,  yuur  ambitious  aspirations,  nor  your  thirst  for  miracles."  But  till  this  kind 
of  interpVetivlion  meets  with  an  msurmountable  obstacle  m  Mark's  narrative,  where 
mention  is  made  merely  of  the  sojourn  in  the  desert,  and  of  the  temptation  in  geneial, 
without  lllo  three  particular  tests,  that  is,  according  to  this  opinion,  without  the  really 
Rigniticaut  portion  of  the  information  being  even  mentioned.  According  to  this,  Mark 
Would  have  lost  the  kernel  and  retained  only  the  shell,  or,  as  Keim  says,  "  kept  the 
llesh  wiiile  rejecting  the  skeleton."  In  transforming  the  ]iaral)le  into  history,  the 
evani!elist  would  liave  omitted  prec-isely  that  w  hich  contained  the  idea  of  the  parable. 
Usieri,  who  had  at  one  time  adojjted  the  preceding  view,  was  led  by  these  diflicullies 
to  regard  this  nairative  us  a  myth  emanating  from  tlie  Christian  consciousness  ;  and 
Strauss  tried  to  explain  the  origin  of  this  legend  by  the  j^Icssianic  notions  current 
among  the  J(!ws.  But  the  latter  has  not  succeeded  in  producing,  from  the  Jewish 
theology,  a  single  passage  eailicr  thim  the  tin)e  of  Jesus  in  which  the  idea  of  a  per- 
sonal coutiint  between  the  ^Messiah  and  ^ataa  is  expressed.  As  to  the  (/"hrstian  con- 
sciousness, woidd  it  have  been  capable  of  creating  complete  in  all  ils  parts  a  narra- 
tive so  mysterious  and  profound?  Lastl}',  the  remarkably  iixed  place  which  this 
event  occupies  in  the  three  synoptics  belween  the  bajjtism  of  Jesus  and  the  com- 
mencement of  His  ministry  proves  that  this  element  of  the  evangelical  history  be- 
longs to  the  earliest  form  of  Christian  instruction.  It  coidd  not  therefore  be  the  pro- 
duct of  a  later  legendary  crealltm. 

Unhss  all  the>a  indications  aie  delusive,  the  narrative  of  the  templation  must  cor- 
resp  m  I  wilh  a  leat  fact  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour  But  mijht  it  not  be  the  descrip- 
tion of  a  purely  m  )ral  struggle — of  a  sliug.ule  that  was  ccnlined  to  the  soul  of  Jesus? 
Might  not  the  temptation  be  a  vision  occasioned  by  the  state  of  exallatiim  resulting 
from  a  prolonged  fast,  in  which  the  brilliant  image  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  was  pre- 
sented to  His  imaginntion  under  the  most  seductive  forms?  (Eichhorn.  Paulus).  Or 
might  not  this  narrative  be  a  condensed  summary  of  u  long  series  of  intense  medita- 
tions, in  which,  after  having  opened  His  soul  with  tender  sympathy  to  all  the  aspira- 
tions of  His  age  and  people,  Jesus  had  decidedly  broken  with  them,  and  determined, 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  issue,  to  become  solely  the  JMessiah  of  God  ?  (Ullmann.) 
In  the  first  case,  the  hcitrt  whence  came  this  carnal  dream  could  no  longer  be  the 
heart  of  the  H'jly  One  of  God,  and  the  perfectly  pure  life  and  conscience  of  Jesus 
become  inexplical)le.  As  to  the  second  form  in  which  this  opinion  is  pieseuted,  it 
contains  undoubtedly  elements  of  truth.  Tlie  last  two  templations  certainly  corre- 
spond with  the  most  pievalent  and  ardent  aspirations  of  the  Jewish  people — the 
expectation  of  a  political  ^Messiah  and  the  thirst  for  external  s'l'^ns  {nTiuela  air elv,  1 
Cor.  1  :  22).  1.  But  how,  from  this  point  of  view,  is  the  first  temptation  to  be  ex- 
plained ?  2.  How  could  the  tigure  of  a  personal  tempter  find  ils  way  into  such  a 
picture?  How  did  it  beome  ils  predominating  feature,  so  as  to  foim  almost  the 
entire  picture  in  Clark's  narrative  ?  .'}.  Have  we  not  the  aulhenlic  comment  of  Jesus 
Himself  on  this  coutlict  in  the  passage  11  :21,  22,  already  referred  to  (p.  loo)?  lu 
descril)ing  this  victory  over  i/ie  strong  man  by  the  man  stronger  titan  lie,  and  laying  it 
down  as  a  condition  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  spoiling  of  the  stronghold  of  the 
former,  did  not  Jesus  allude  to  ii  personal  conflict  between  Himself  and  the  prince  of 
this  world,  such  as  we  find  portrayed  in  the  narrative  of  the  temptation?  For  these 
reasons,  Keim.  while  ho  recognizes  in  the  temptation,  with  Ullmann,  a  sublime  fact 
in  the  moral  life  of  Jesus,  an  energetic  determination  of  His  will  by  which  He  abso- 
lutely  renounced  any  deviation  wliatevcr  from  the  divine  will,  notwitiistundmg  the 
iiisulHeiency  of  human  means,  confesses  that  he  cannot  refuse  to  admit  the  possibil- 
ity of  the  existence  and  interposition  of  the  representative  of  the  powers  of  evil. 

Here  we  reach  the  only  explanation  wdiich,  in  our  opinion,  can  account  for  the 
narrative  of  the  temptation.  As  there  is  a  mutual  contact  of  bodies,  so  also,  in  a 
hii^her  sphere  than  that  of  matter,  there  is  an  action  and  reaction  of  spirits  on  each 
other.  It  was  in  this  higher  sphere  to  wdiich  Jesus  was  raised,  that  He,  the  represen- 
tative of  voluntary  dependence  and  filial  love  to  God,  met  tliat  spirit  in  whom  the 
autonomy  of  the  creature  finds  its  most  resolute  representative,  and  in  every  way, 
and  uoiwithstanding  all  this  spirit's  craft,  maintained  bv  conscientious  choice  Ilia 


144  COMMEXTAllY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

own  ruling  principle.  Tliis  victory  decided  the  fate  of  mankind  ;  it  licrame  the 
foinuliUii)a  of  the  establishment  of  God's  kingdom  upon  earlh.  Tliis  is  the  ess«.iilial 
signiticuiice  of  this  event.  As  to  the  narrative  in  which  this  mysterious  scene  lias 
been  disclosed  to  us,  it  must  be  just,  a  symbolical  picture,  by  means  of  which  Jesus 
endeavored  to  make  His  disciples  understand  a  fact  which,  from  its  very  naluie, 
could  only  be  fiilj''  described  in  figurative  langunge.  Still  we  must  remember,  thnt 
Jesus  being  really  man,  having  His  spirit  united  to  a  body,  He  needed,  quite  as  much 
as  we  do,  sensible  representations  as  a  means  of  apprehending  spiritual  facts.  ]\Iela- 
phorical  language  was  as  natural  in  His  case  as  incurs.  In  ail  probability,  llieie- 
fore,  it  was liecessary,  in  order  to  Tlis  fully  entering  into  the  conflict  between  Him 
.self  and  the  tempter,  that  it  should  a';sume  the  scenic  (plasiiqiw)  foim  in  which  it  has 
been  preserved  to  us.  While  saying  this,  we  do  not  think  that  Jesus  was  transported 
bodily  by  Satan  through  the  air.  "We  believe  that,  had  He  been  observed  by  any 
.spectator  while  the  tenTplation  was  going  on.  He  would  have  appeared  all  through  it 
motionless  upon  the  soil  of  the  desert.  But  though  the  conflict  did  not  pass  out  of 
the  f^piritual  sphere,  it  was  none  Ihe  less  real,  and  the  value  of  this  victory  M-as  not 
less  iucalculuble  and  decisive,  This  view,  with  some  slight  shades  of  difference,  is 
that  advocated  by  Theodore  of  ]\Iopsuestia  in  the  ancient  Church,  by  some  of  the 
Ileformers,  and  by  several  modern  commentators  (Olshausen,  Neander,  Oosleizee, 
Pressense,  etc.). 

Bnt  could  Jesus  be  really  tempted,  if  He  was  holy?  could  He  sin,  if  He  was  the 
Sdu  of  God? /«77  in  His  work,  if  He  was  the  Redeemer  appointed  by  God  ?  Asa 
lialy  being.  He  could  be  tempted,  because  a  conflict  might  arise  between  some  legiti- 
male  bodily  want  or  normal  desire  of  the  soul,  and  the  divine  will,  which  for  Ihe  time 
forbade  its  satisfaction.  The  Son  could  sin,  since  He  had  renounced  His  divine 
mode  of  existence  in  the  form  of  God(F\\\\.  2  :  G),  in  order  to  enter  into  a  human 
condition  altogether  like  ours.  The  Redeemer  might  succumb,  if  the  question  be 
regarded  from  the  standpoint  of  His  personal  liberty  ;  which  is  quite  consistent  with 
God  being  assured  by  His  foreknowledge  that  He  would  stand  firm.  This  fore- 
knowledge was  one  of  the  factors  of  His  plan,  precisely  as  the  foreknowledge  of  the 
faith  of  believers  is  one  the  elements  of  His  eternal  Trp/iOeaiZ  (Rom.  8  :  20). 

2d.  Object  of  the  Tempidtion. — The  temptation  is  the  complement  of  the  baptism. 
It  is  the  negeitire  preparation  of  Jesus  for  His  ministry,  as  the  baptism  was  His 
■poMtice  preparation.  In  His  baptism  Jesus  receii'ed  impulse,  calling,  stieuglh.  By  the 
temptation  He  was  made  distinctly  conscious  of  the  errors  to  be  shunned,  and  the  perils 
to  be  feared,  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left.  The  temptation  was  the  last  act  of  His 
moral  education  ;  it  gave  Him  an  insight  into  all  the  ways  in  which  His  Messianic 
,.w?)lk  could  possibly  be  maned.  If,  from  the  very  first  step  in  His  arduous  taieer, 
^ Jesus  kept  the  path  marked  out  by  God's  will  without  deviation,  change,  or  hesi- 
tancy, this  bold  fiout  and  steadfast  perseverance  are  certainly  due  to  His  experience 
of  the  temptation.  All  the  wrong  courses  possible  to  Him  were  thenceforth  known  ; 
all  the  rocks  had  been  observed  ;  and  it  was  the  enemy  himself  who  had  rendered 
Him  this  service.  And  it  was  for  this  reason  that  God  apparently  delivered  Him 
for  a  brief  time  into  his  power.  This  is  just  what  Matthew's  narrative  expresses  so 
forcibly:  "  He  was  led  up  of  the  Spirit  .  .  .  to  be  tempted."  When  He  left  this 
school,  Jesus  distinctly  understood  that,  as  respects  His  person,  no  act  of  His  ministry 
was  to  have  any  tendency  to  lift  it  out  of  His  human  condition  ;  that,  as  to  His 
woik,  it  was  to  be  "in  no  way  assimilated  to  the  action  of  the  powers  of  this  world  ; 
and  ti)at  in  the  employmentoi  divine  power  filial  bberty  was  never  to  become  caprice, 
not  even  under  a  pretext  of  bhnd  trust  in  the  help  of  God.  And  this  programme  was 
carried  out.  His  material  wants  were  supplied  by  the  gifts  of  charity  (8  :  3),  not  by 
miracles;  His  mode  of  life  was  nothing  else  than  a  perpetual  hunuliation — a  pro- 
longation, 80  to  speak,  of  His  incarnation.  When  laboring  to  establish  His  kingdom, 
Ileunhesitatingly  refused  the  aid  of  huma;i  power — as,  for  instance,  when  the  multi- 
tude wished  to  inake  Him  a  king  (John  6  ;  15)  ;  and  His  ministry  assumed  the  char- 
acter of  an  exclusively  spiritual  conquest.  He  abstained,  lastly,  from  every  miracle 
which  had  not  for  its  immediate  design  the  revelation  of  moral  perfection,  that  is  to 
say,  of  the  glory  of  His  Father  (Luke  11  :  20).  These  supreme  rules  of  the  Messianic 
activity  were  all  learned  in  that  school  of  trial  through  which  God  caused  Him  to 
pass  in  the  desert. 

Zd.  The  ^Narratives  ef  the  Temptation. — It  has  been  maintained  that,  since  John 


THE    TEMTTATION.  MO 

(lies  notTclatetlie  leniptalion,  he  de  facto  doiiies  it.  But,  as  we  have  already  observed, 
I  lie  starting  point  of  i;is  narrative  l)el()ngs  to  a  later  time.  Tlie  narrative  of  .Mark 
(1  :  I'-i,  13),  is  very  siinimary  indeed.  It  occupies  in  souie  respects  a  middle  place 
between  the  other  two,  approaching  Matthew's  in  the  preface  and  close  (the  minis- 
tration of  the  angels),  ami  Jjuke's  iu  the  e.xtensiun  of  the  temptalion  to  forty  days. 
But  it  differs  from  both  in  omitting  the  three  particular  lem[)tali()ns,  and  by  the  addi- 
tion of  the  incident  of  the  wild  beasts.  Here  arises,  for  those  who  maintain  that  one 
of  our  Gospels  was  the  source  of  the  other,  or  of  both  the  others,  the  following 
dilemma  :  Either  the  original  narrative  is  Mark's,  which  the  oilier  two  have  ampli- 
fied (Meyer),  or  3lark  has  given  a  suinmaiy  of  the  two  otheis  (BlceU).  There  is  yet 
a  third  alternative,  by  which  Ilollziiiaun  escapes  this  dilemma  :  Theie  was  jin  original 
MarK,  and  its  account  was  transferred  in  extetiso  into  Luke  and  Matthew,  but 
abridged  by  our  canonical  Mark.  This  last  supposition  appears  to  us  inadmissible  ; 
for  if  Matthew  aud  Luke  drew  from  tJic  name  written  source,  how  did  the  strange 
reversal  in  the  order  of  the  two  lemplali.,ns  happen  ?  Schleierinacher  supposes — and 
modern  crticism  approves  the  suggestion  (Ilollzmann,  p.  21o)— that  Luke  altered  the 
order  of  ^latthew  in  order  not  to  change  the  scene  so  frequently,  by  making  Jesus 
leave  tlie  desert  (for  the  temple),  and  then  return  to  it  (for  the  mountain).  We  n  ally 
wonder  how  men  can  seriously  i)ut  forward  such  puerilities.  Lastly,  if  the  three 
evaugelists  drew  from  the  samj  source,  the  Proto-]\laik,  whence  is  the  mention  of 
the  wild  beasts  in  our  canonical  INLaik  derived?  The  evangelist  cannot  have  imagined 
it  without  any  authority  ;  and  if  it  was  mentioned  in  the  commoa  source,  it  could 
not  have  been  passed  over,  as  Holtzinana  admits  (p.  70),  by  Luke  aud  Matthew.  The 
ex'plmation  of  the  latter  critic  being  set  aside,  there  lemains  the  original  dilemma. 
Have  Matthew  aud  Luke  ainplitied  Mark?  How  then  does  it  happen  that  they 
coin:'iiie,  n)t  <inly  iu  tliat  part  which  they  have  in  common  with  Mark,  but  cpiile  as 
much,  aul  even  m  )re,  in  that  which  is  wanting  iu  JMark  (the  detail  of  llie  tluee  temp- 
tations)? How  is  it,  again  that  Matthew  contines  the  temptation  to  the  last  moment, 
iu  ()ppi)sitiou  to  the  narrative  of  ^Lirk  and  Luke  ;  that  Luke  omits  the  succor  brought 
to  Jesus  by  the  angels,  contrary  to  the  account  of  Mark  and  IMatthew  ;  aud  that 
Luke  aud  Mitihew  omit  the  detail  of  the  wild  beasts,  in  o[)posilion  to  their  source, 
Ih  !  narratis'c  of  .\[:irk  ?  They  amplify,  aud  yet  they  abridge  !  Ou  the  other  liand,  is 
Mark  a  compiler  from  Matthew  and  Luke  ?  How,  then,  is  it  that  he  says  not  a  vvurd 
ab)Ut  the  forty  days'  fast?  It  is  alleged  that  he  desires  to  avoid  loug  discourses. 
But  this  lengthened  fast  belongs  to  the  facts,  not  to  the  words.  Besides,  whence 
does  he  get  C\i't  fact  ab  )ut  the  wil  1  beasts  ?     He  abridges,  and  yet  he  amplifies  ! 

All  these  ditliculties  which  arise  out  of  this  hypothesis,  aud  which  can  only  b^ 
remived  by  su[)p;)sing  that  the  evangelists  used  their  authorities  iu  an  inconceivably 
arbitrary  way,  disappear  of  themselves,  if  we  admit,  as  the  common  source  of  the 
three  narratives,  au  oral  tradition  which  circiilated  iu  the  Church,  and  reproduced, 
m  )re  or  less  exactly,  the  original  accnunt  given  by  Jesus  aud  transmitted  by  the 
ap)stles.  Mark  only  wished  to  give  a  brief  account,  which  was  all  that  appealed  to 
him  necessary  for  hs  readers.  The  preaching  of  Peter  to  Cornelius  (Acts  10  :  37,  ei 
ser/.)  furnishes  an  e.'cample  of  this  mode  of  condensing  the  traditional  accounts. 
31  irk  had  perhapsjieard  th'j  detail  relative  to  the  wild'beasts  from  the  mouth  of 
Peter  himself.  Tlie  special  aim  of  his  narrative  is  to  show  us  ia  Jesus  the  holy 
mm  raised  to  his  original  dignity,  as  Lord  over  nature  (the  wild  beasts),  and  the 
friend  of  heaven  (the  angels).  "MaUhew  lias  reproduced  the  apostolic  tradition,  iu  the 
form  which  it  had  specially  taken  iu  the  Jewish-Christian  churches.  Of  this  we 
liave  two  indications  :  1.  The  ritiuiUxtic,  character  which  is  given  in  this  narrative  to 
the  fasting  of  Jesus  {hapi/if/  fastprl)  ;  3.  The  order  of  the  lasttwo  temptations,  accord- 
ing to  wliich  the  pecrdiarly  Messianic  temptation  is  exhibited  as  the  supreme  aud 
decisive  act  of  the  conflict.  As  to  Luke,  the  substance  of  his  narrative  is  the  same 
ap  )stolic  tradition  ;  but  he  was  enabled  by  certain  written  accounts,  or  means  of 
information,  to  gis'e  some  details  with  greater  exactness— to  restore,  for  example,  the 
acta  il  order  of  the  three  temptations.  We  find  him  here,  as  usual,  more  complete 
thau  Mark,  aud  more  exact,  hi.storically  speaking,  than  Matthew. 

And  now,  His  position  thus  ma  de  clear,  with  Ood  for  His  sure  ally,  aud  Satan 
for  His  declared  adversary,  Jesus  advances  to  the  field  of  battle. 


THIRD    PART. 


THE  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  IN  GALILEE. 

Chap.  4  :  14,  9  :  50. 

The  three  Synoptics  all  connect  the  narrative  of  tlie  Galilsean  ministry  with  the 
account  of  the  temptation.  But  the  narrations  of  IMatthew  and  Mark  have  tliis  ])ecu- 
liarity,  that,  according  to  them,  the  motive  for  the  return  of  Jesus  to  Galilee  must  have 
been  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  :  "  Now  when  Jesus  had  huuitl  tiiat 
John  was  cast  into  prison,  He  departed  into  Galilee"  (Malt.  4  :  12)  ;  "  Now,  after 
that  John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee"  (Mai k  1:14).  As  the  temp- 
tation dues  not  appear  to  have  been  coincident  witli  the  apprehension  of  John,  tiie 
question  arises,  Where  did  Jesus  spend  the  more  or  less  lengthened  time  that  inter- 
vened between  these  two  events,  and  what  was  He  doing  during  the  interval  ?  This 
is  the  first  difficulty.  There  is  another  :  How  could  the  apprehension  of  John  the 
Baptist  have  induced  Jesus  to  return  to  Galilee,  to  the  dominions  of  this  very  Herod 
who  was  keeping  John  in  prison?  Luke  throws  no  light  whatever  on  these  two 
questions  which  arise  out  of  the  narrative  of  the  Syn.,  because  he  makes  no  mention 
in  this  place  of  the  imprisonment  of  John,  but  simply  connects  the  commencement 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  with  the  victory  Pie  liad  just  achieved  in  the  desert.  It  is 
John  who  gives  the  solution  of  these  difficulties.  According  to  him,  there  were  two 
returns  of  Jesus  to  Galilee,  which  his  narrative  distinguishes  with  the  greatest  care. 
The  first  took  place  immediately  after  the  baptism  and  the  temptation  (1  :  44).  It  was 
then  that  He  called  some  young  Galilaeans  to  follow  Him,  who  were  attached  to  the 
forerunner,  and  shared  his  expectation  of  the  Messiah.  The  second  is  related  in 
chap.  4:1;  John  connects  it  with  the  Pharisees'  jealousy  of  John  the  Baptist,  which 
explains  the  account  of  the  first  two  Syn.  It  appears,  in  fact,  acc(;rding  to  him,  tliat 
some  of  the  Pharisees  were  party  to  the  blow  which  had  struck  John,  and  therefore 
we  can  well  understand  that  Jesus  would  be  more  distrustful  of  them  than  even  of 
Herod.*  That  the  Pharisees  had  a  hand  in  .John's  imprisonment,  is  confirmed  b}"" 
the  expression  delivered,  which  Matthew  and  Mark  emjjloy.  It  was  they  who  had 
caused  him  to  be  seized  and  delivered  up  to  Herod. 

The  two  returns  mentioned  by  John  were  separated  by  quite  a  number  of  events  : 
the  transfer  of  .Jesus'  place  of  residence  from  Nazareth  to  Capernaum  ;  His  first 
journey  to  .Jerusalem  to  attend  the  Passover  ;  the  interview  with  Nicodemus  ;  and  a 
period  of  prolonged  activity  in  Judsea,  simultaneous  with  that  of  John  the  Baptist, 
who  was  still  enjoying  his  Uberty  (John  2  :  12  ;  4  :  43).     The  second  return  to  Galilee, 

*  Biiumlein,  "  Comment,  iiber  das  Evang.  Joh."  p.  8. 


CHAP.   IX.  :  1-i  ;  IX.  :  50.  147 

•wliifh  tonuiniilocl  this  long  ministry  in  Jiukea,  did  not  taku  place,  iiccordinR  to  4  :  35, 
nnlil  the  month  of  December  iu  this  same  year,  so  that  at  least  twelve  mouths  elapsed 
between  it  and  the  former.  The  Syn.,  relating  only  a  single  return,  must  have 
blended  the  two  into  one.  Only  there  is  this  difference  beiwcn  them,  that  iu  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  it  is  rather  the  idea  of  the  second  which  seems  to  predominate,  since 
they  connect  it  witli  John's  imprisonment  ;  whde  Luke  brings  out  more  the  idea  of 
the  tirst,  for  he  associates  it  with  the  temptation  exclusively.  The  mingling  of  these 
two  analogous  facts— really,  however,  separated  by  almost  a  year — must  have  taken 
place  previously  iu  the  oral  liaditi(jn,  since  it  passed,  though  not  without  some 
variaiious,  into  our  three  Synoptics.  The  narrative  of  Johu  was  expressly  designed 
t.)  re-establish  tiiis  lost  disliucliou  (corap.  Johu  3  :  11,  3  :  24,  4  :  54).  In  this  way  in 
the  Syn.  the  interval  between  these  two  returns  to  Galilee  disappeared,  and  the  two 
residences  in  Galilee,  which  were  separated  from  each  other  by  this  ministry  in 
Juda?.i,  form  iu  them  one  couliuuous  whole.  Further,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  in 
which  of  the  two  to  place  the  seveial  facts  which  the  Syn.  relate  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  GaliUean  ministry. 

We  nuist  not  forget  that  the  apostolic  preaching,  and  the  popular  teaching  given 
in  the  churches,  were  directed  not  by  any  historical  iuterest,  but  with  a  view  to  the 
foundation  and  contirmalion  of  faith.  Facts  of  a  similar  ualuie  were  therefore 
grouped  togetlier  in  this  teaching  until  they  became  completely  inseparable.  We 
sirili  see,  in  the  same  way.  the  different  journeys  to  Jerusalem,  fused  by  tradition 
intD  a  single  pilgriumge,  placed  at  the  end  of  Jesus'  ministry.  Thus  the  great  con- 
trast which  prevails  in  the  synoptical  narrative  between  Galilee  and  Jerusalem  is  ex- 
plained. It  was  only  when  John,  not  depending  on  tradition,  but  drawing  from  his 
own  personal  recollecli(ms,  restored  to  this  history  its  various  phases  and  natural 
connections  that  the  complete  picture  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  appeared  before  the 
eyes  of  tlie  Church. 

But  why  did  not  Jesus  commeuce  His  activity  in  Galilee,  as,  according  to  the 
Syn.,  He  would  seem  to  have  done.  The  answer  to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in 
John  4  :  43-45.  In  that  country,  where  He  spent  His  youth,  Jesus  would  necessarily 
expect  to  meet,  more  than  anywhere  else,  with  certain  prejudices  opposed  to  the 
recognition  of  His  JIe.>isianic  dignity.  "  A  prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own 
country"  (John  4  :  44).  This  is  why  He  would  not  undertake  His  work  among  His 
Galilccan  fellow-countrymen  until  after  He  had  achieved  some  success  elsewhere. 
The  reputation  which  preceded  His  return  would  serve  to  prepare  His  wa}-  among 
tlicm  (John  4  :  45).  He  had  therefore  Galilee  in  view  even  during  this  eaily  activity 
in  Judaea.  He  foresaw  that  tliis  province  would  be  the  cradle  of  His  Church;  for 
the  yoke  of  phaiisaical  and  sacerdotal  despotism  did  not  press  so  heavily  on  it  as  on 
the  capital  and  its  neighborhood.  The  chords  of  human  feeling,  paralyzed  in  Judoea 
by  false  devotion,  still  vibrated  in  the  hearls  of  these  mountaineers  to  frank  and  stir- 
ring ajipeals,  and  their  ignorance  appeared  to  Him  a  medium  more  easily  penetrable 
by  light  from  above  than  ihe  perverted  enlightenment  of  rabbinical  science.  Comp. 
the  remarkable  passage,  10  ;  21. 

It  is  not  ea.sy  to  make  out  the  plan  of  this  part,  for  it  describes  a  continuous  prog- 
ress without  anj'  marked  bieaks  ;  it  is  a  picture  of  the  inward  and  outward  progress 
of  the  work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee.  Ritschl  is  of  opinion  that  the  progress  of  the  story 
is  determined  by  the  growing  hostility  of  the  adversaries  of  Jesus  ;  and  accordingly 
he  aiopls  this  division  :  4  . 1(5,  G  :  11,  absence  of  conflict  ;  6  :  12, 11  :  54,  the  hostile 


148  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

attitude  assumed  by  the  two  adversaries  toward  each  other.  But,  -first,  the  fiist 
symptoms  of  hostility  break  out  before  6  :  12  ;  second,  the  passage  9  :  51,  which  is 
passed  over  by  the  divisiuu  of  Ritschl,  is  evidently,  in  the  view  of  the  author,  one  of 
tlie  principal  connecting  links  in  the  narrative  ;  third,  the  growing  hatred  of  the  ad- 
versaries of  Jesus  is  only  an  accident  of  His  worit,  and  in  no  waj--  the  governing 
motive  of  its  development.  It  is  not  there,  therefore,  that  we  must  seek  the  principle 
of  the  division.  The  author  appears  to  us  to  have  marked  out  a  route  for  himself  by 
a  series  of  facts,  in  which  there  is  a  gradation  easily  perceived.  At  first  Jesus 
preaches  without  any  following  of  regular  disciples  ;  soon  He  calls  about  Him  some 
of  tlie  most  attentive  of  His  hearers,  to  make  them  His  permanent  disciples  ,  after  a 
certain  time,  when  these  disciples  had  become  very  numerous.  He  raises  twelve  of 
them  to  the  rank  of  apostles  ;  lastly,  He  intrusts  these  twelve  with  their  tirst  mission, 
and  makes  them  His  evangelists.  This  gradation  in  the  position  of  His  helpers 
naturally  corresponds,  j/i?-«^,  with  the  internal  progress  of  His  teaching  ;  second,  with 
the  local  extension  of  His  work  ;  third,  with  the  increasing  hostility  of  the  Jews, 
■with  whom  Jesus  breaks  more  and  more,  in  proportion  as  He  gives  organic  form  to 
His  own  work.  It  therefore  furnishes  a  measuie  of  the  entire  movement.  We  are 
guided  by  it  to  the  following  division  : 

First  Cycle,  4  :  14-44,  extending  to  the  call  of  the  first  disciijles. 

Second  Cycle,  5  : 1,  6  :  11,  to  the  nomination  of  the  twelve. 

Third  Cycle,  6  :  12,  8  :  56,  to  their  first  mission. 

Fourth  Cycle,  9  : 1-50,  to  the  departure  of  Jesus  for  Jerusalem. 

At  this  point  the  work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  comes  to  an  end  ;  He  bids  adieu  to  this 
field  of  labor,  and,  setting  His  face  toward  Jerus;dem,  He  carries  with  Him  into 
Judaea  the  result  of  His  previous  labors,  His  Galiieeau  Church. 

FIRST  CYCLE.— CHAP.    4    :  14-44. 

Visits  to  Nazareth  and  to  Capernaum. 

The  following  narratives  are  grouped  around  two  names — Nazareth  (vers.  14-80) 
and  Capernaum  (vers.  31-44). 

1.  Visit  to  Nazareth  :  vers,  14-30.  This  portion  opens  with  a  general  glance  at 
the  commencement  of  the  active  Tabors  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  :  14,  15.  Then,  resting 
on  this  foundation,  but  separable  from  it,  as  a  particular  example,  we  have  the  nar- 
rative of  His  preaching  at  Nazaretli  :  vers.  lG-30. 

First  Vers.  14,  15.  The  14tli  verse  is,  as  we  have  shown,  the  complement  of 
ver  1  (see  ver.  1)  The  verb,  he  returned,  comprehends,  according  to  what  pre- 
cedes, the  two  returns  mentioned,  John  1  :  44  and  4  : 1,  and  even  a  third,  understood 
between  John  5  and  6.  The  words,  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  do  not  refer,  as  many 
have  tliought,  to  an  impulse  from  above,  which  urged  Jesus  to  return  to  Galilee,  but 
to  His  possession  of  the  divine  powers  which  He  had  received  at  His  baptism,  and 
with  which  He  was  now  about  to  teach  and  act  ;  complflUed  with  the  Spirit, 
ver.  1,  Luke  evidently  means  that  he  returned  different  from  what  he  was  when  He 
left.  Was  this  supernatural  power  of  Jesus  displayed  solely  in  His  preaching,  or  in 
miracles  also  already  wrought  at  this  period,  though  not  related  by  Luke?  Since  the 
miracle  at  Cana  took  place,  according  to  John,  just  at  this  lime,  we  incline  to  the  lat- 
ter meaning,  which,  considering  the  term  employed,  is  also  the  mure  natural.  In 
this  way,  what  is  said  of  His  fame,  which  immediately  spread  through  all  the  rejjiou 


CHAP.   IV.  :  14-19.  149 

round  about,  is  readily  explained.  Preaching  alone  would  scarcelj'  have  been  sufTi- 
cient  to  have  brought  about  this  resuj^  Meyer  brings  in  here  the  leport  of  the 
miraculous  incidents  of  the  baptism  ;  but  these  probably  had  not  been  witnessed  by 
any  one  save  Jesus  and  John,  and  no  allusion  is  made  to  them  subsequently.  The 
ir)tii  vers^e  relates  how,  after  liis  reputation  had  prepared  the  way  for  lliiu.  He  came 
Him.tdfiavTiig)  ;  then  how  tliey  all,  after  hearing  Hliu,  ratified  the  favorable  judg- 
ment which  Ilis  fame  had  bi-ougbt  respecting  Him  (ijlorifiidofall).  The  synagogues, 
in  which  Jesus  fultillcd  His  itinerant  minislry,  were  places  of  assembly  existing  from 
the  retutn  of  the  captivity,  perhaps  even  earlier.  (Bleik  finds  the  proof  of  an  earlier 
date  in  Ps.  74  :8.)  "Wherever  there  was  a  somewhat  numerous  Jewish  populalion, 
even  in  heathen  countries,  there  were  such  places  of  worship.  They  assembled  in 
them  on  the  Sabbath  da}',  also  on  the  Monday  and  Tuesday,  and  on  court  and  market 
days.  Any  one  wishing  Iv^  speak  signified  his  intention  by  rising  (at  least  according 
to  this  passage  ;  comp.  also  Acts  13  :  IG).  But  as  all  teaching  wrrs  founded  on  the 
Scriptures,  to  speak  was  before  anything  else  to  rend.  The  reading  finished,  he 
tairgiu,  silting  down  (Acts  V,]  :  IG,  Paul  speaks  standing).  Order  Avas  nrairitaincd  by 
the  itpxinvrufjoyyoi,  or  presidents  of  the  synagogue.  Vers.  14  and  l.")  forrii  the  fourth 
definite  statement  in  the  accovrnt  of  the  development  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  ; 
comp.  3  :  40,  52,  and  3  :  23. 

Second.  Vers.  l()-30.  Jesus  did  not  begin  by  preaching  at  Nazareth.  In  His 
view,  no  doubt,  the  inhabitants  of  this  city  stood  in  much  the  same  relation  to  the 
people  of  the  rest  of  Galilee  as  the  inhabitants  of  Galilee  to  the  rest  of  the  Jewish 
people  ;  He  knew  that  in  a  certain  stnse  Hisgreatestdifliculties  would  be  encounter- 
ed there,  and  that  it  would  be  prudent  to  defer  his  visit  until  the  time  wnen  His  rep- 
utation, being  already  established  in  the  rest  of  the  country,  would  help  to  counter- 
act the  prejudice  resulting  from  His  form.er  lengthened  connection  with  the  people 
of  the  place. 

Vers.  lG-19.*  The  Reading. — Ver.  10.  Kai.  "  And  in  these  itinerancies  He 
came  also."  John  (2  :  12)  and  3Iallhew  (4  :  13)  r-efer  to  this  time  the  transfer  of  tlie 
residence  of  Jesus  (and  also,  according  to  John,  of  that  of  His  motirer  and  br-ethren) 
fr'om  Nazareth  to  Capernarrm,  winch  naturally  implies  a  visit  to  Nazareth.  Besides, 
John  places  the  miracle  at  the  marriage  at  Cana  at  the  same  time.  Now,  Cana  be- 
ing such  a  very  short  distance  from  Nazareth,  it  would  have  been  an  affectation  on 
the  part  of  Jesus  to  be  staying  so  near  His  native  town,  and  not  visit  it.  The  words, 
iclieje  lie  had  been  brought  vp,  assign  the  motive  of  His  proceeding.  The  expression, 
accordiwj  to  His  custom,  cannot  apply  to  the  short  time  which  had  elapsed  since  His 
return  to  Galilee,  unless,  with  Bleek,  we  regard  it  as  an  indication  that  this  event  is 
of  later  date,  which  indeed  is  possible,  but  in  no  waj"  necessary.  ■  It  rather  applies 
to  the  period  of  Ilis  childhood  and  youth.  Tliis  remark  is  iu  close  connection  witlr 
the  words,  where  he  had  been  brovf/ht  tip.  .Attendance  at  the  synagogue  was,  as  Keim 
has  well  brought  out  (t.  i.  p.  434),  a  most  important  instrument  in  the  religious  and 

*  Ver.  10.  T.  E.,  with  K.  L.  n.  manyMnn..  NaCaper  (c""— ptO  with  11  Mjj.)  ;  D.. 
Na;«pf(!  ;  !!*.  B.*  Z.  Nf/,''V«  ;  A.,  N«C';/j"1"  :  ^.,  N«s'«p«^.  Ver.  17.  A.  B.  L.  Z.  S3'r. 
read  nvui^ai  instead  of  avuTm^as,  wliich  is  the  reading  of  IG  Mjj.  Mun.  B.  It.  Ver. 
18.  Twenty  Mjj.  read  evay-yr'Aiaaafi-u  instead  of  tvayyt/.ii^FaOnt,  which  is  tiie  leading 
of  T.  R.  wrth  merely  some  Mnn.  Ver.  1!).  it.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  It.  omit  the  words 
laoanfjai  r.  owrerp.  t.  Kapihav,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  15  Mjj.,  the  greater 
]jart  of  the  Mnn.  Syr. 


150  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

intellectual  development  of  Jesus.  Cliildren  had  access  to  this  worship  from  the  age 
of  tive  or  six  ;  they  were  compelled  to  attend  it  when  they  reached  tliirteen  (Keim,  t. 
i.  p.  431).  But  it  was  not  solely  hy  means  of  these  Scripture  lessons,  heard  regularly 
in  the  synagogue  several  times  a  week,  that  Jesus  learned  to  know  the  O.  T.  so  well. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  as  Keim  says,  that  He  possessed  a  copy  of  the  sacred  book 
Himself.  Otherwise  He  would  not  have  known  how  to  read,  as  He  is  about  to  do 
here.  The  received  reading,  having  unrolled,  ver.  17,  is  preferable  to  the  Alex,  var., 
having  opened.  The  sacred  volumes  were  in  the  form  of  rectangular  sheets,  ro.led 
round  a  cylinder.  By  the  expression,  He  found,  Luke  gives  us  to  understand  that 
Jesus,  surrendering  Himself  to  guidance  from  above,  read  at  the  place  where  the  roll 
opened  of  itself.  We  cannot  then  infer,  as  Bengel  does,  from  the  fact  of  this  pas- 
sage being  read  by  the  Jews  on  the  day  of  atonement,  that  this  feast  was  being  ob- 
served on  that  very  day.  Besides,  the  piesent  course  of  the  Haphtaroth,  or  readings 
from  the  prophets,  dates  from  a  later  period. 

This  passage  belongs  to  the  second  part  of  Isaiah  (61  ;  1  etseq.).  This  long  con- 
secutive prophecy  is  generally  applied  to  the  return  from  the  captivity.  The  only 
term  which  would  suggest  this  explanation  in  our  passage  is  alx/LiaXuToic,  properly 
prisoners  of  war,  ver.  19.  But  this  woid  is  used  with  a  more  general  meaning,  lit. 
Paul  applies  it  to  his  companions  in  work  and  activity  (Col.  4  :  10).  The  term 
iTTuxoS,  poor,  rather  implies  that  the  people  are  settled  in  their  own  country.  The  re- 
markable expression,  to  proclava  the  acccptnhle  year  of  the  Lord,  makes  the  real  thought 
of  the  prophet  sufficiently  clear.  There  was  in  the  life  of  the  people  of  Israel  a  yef^r 
of  grace,  which  might  very  naturally  become  a  type  of  the  Messianic  era.  This  was 
the  3'ear  of  Jubilee,  which  returned  every  tifty  years  (Lev.  26).  B3'  means  of  this 
admirable  institution.  God  had  provided  for  a  periodical  social  restoration  in  Israel. 
The  Israelite  who  haa  sold  himself  into  slavery  regained  his  liberty  ;  families  which 
had  alienated  their  patrimony  recovered  possession  ;  a  wide  amnesty  was  granted  to 
persons  imprisoned  for  debt — so  many  types  of  tiic  work  of  Him  who  was  to  restoro 
spiritual  liberty  to  mankind,  to  free  them  from  their  guilt,  and  restore  to  them  their 
divine  inheritance.  Jesus,  therefore,  could  not  have  received  from  His  Father  a  text 
more  appropriate  to  His  present  position — the  inauguration  of  His  Messianic  min- 
istry amid  the  scenes  of  Plis  pievious  life. 

Tiie  first  words.  The  Spirit  of  Vie  Lord  is  upon  me,  are  a  paraphrase  of  the  teim 
n^II'D'  Messiah  (Xp^aros,  Anointed).  Jesus,  in  reading  these  wor-ds,  could  not  but 
apply  them  to  His  recent  baptism.  Tiie  expression  heKEv  ov  cannot  siirnify  here 
therefore:  "  The  Spirit  is  upon  me  ;  wherefore  God  hath  anointed  me  ;''  this  would 
be  coutfary  to  the  meaning.  The  LXX.  have  used  this  conjunction  to  translate  iyi, 
which  in  the  original  signifies,  just  as";^?^  "lyi,  hecaune,  a  meaning  which  the  Greek 
expression  will  also  bear  (on  this  account  that,  propterea  quod).  On  the  first  day  of  the 
year  of  Jubilee,  the  priests  went  all  through  the  land,  announcing  with  sound  of 
trumpets  the  blessings  brought  by  the  opening  year  {jubilee,  from  7^1,  to  sound  a 
trumpet).  It  is  to  this  proclamation  of  grace  that  the  woids.  to  annouitce  good  netos  to 
the  poor,  undoubtedly  allude.  Lev.  25  :  6,  14,  25.  The  words,  to  heal  the  broken  in 
lieart,  which  ilie  Alex,  reading  omits,  might  have  been  introduced  into  the  text  from 
the  O.  T.  ;  but,  in  our  view,  they  form  the  almost  indispensable  basis  of  the  word  of 
Jesus,  ver.  23.  We  must  therefore  retain  them,  and  attribute  their  omission  to  an 
act  of  negligence  occasioned  by  the  long  string  of  infinitives.  The  term  KTipii^ai 
aoeaiv,  to  ptroclaim  liberty,  employed  ver.  19,  a'so  alludes  to  the  solemn  prcclamaliou 


ciiAi'.   IV.  :  V.)-i-2.  ii)l 

of  the  jubilee.  This  word  (tpojir  is  found  at  almost  every  verse,  in  the  LXX.,  in  the 
statute  enjoining  this  feast.  Bleek  himself  observes  that  the  formula  ~ni"l  ^'-^p, 
\vhi(;h  corresponds  to  those  two  Ciieek  terms,  is  that  which  is  employed  iu  connectiiu 
with  the  jubilee  ;  l)ut  notwithstanding,  this  does  not  prevent  his  applying  the  pass- 
age, aocording  to  the  common  prejudice,  to  the  return  fiom  the  captivity!  The 
prisoners  who  recovered  their  freedom  are  amnestied  malefactors  as  well  as  slaves 
set  free  at  the  beginning  of  this  year  of  grace.  The  image  of  the  blind  restored  l<» 
sight  does  not,  at  the  tirst  glance,  accord  with  that  of  the  jubilee  ;  but  it  docs  iml 
any  better  suit  the  figure  of  the  return  from  the  captivity.  xVud  if  this  translaiiou  of 
the  Hebrew  te.xt  were  accurate,  we  should  have  iu  cither  case  to  allow  that  the 
prophet  had  departed  from  the  general  image  with  which  he  had  started.  But  the 
term  in  Isaiah  (C''"^'CX-  properly  bound)  denotes  captives,  not  blind  persons.  The 
expression  n'p  HpC  signities,  it  is  true,  the  oyjening  of  the  eyes,  not  the  opening  of  a 
prison.  But  the  captives  coming  fortli  from  their  dark  dungeon  are  represented  under 
the  ligure  of  blind  men  suddenly  restored  to  sight.  The  words,  to  set  at  liberty  them 
thxit  ai-e  bruised,  are  taken  from  another  passage  in  Isaiah  (58  :  6).  Probably  iu 
Luke's  authority  this  passage  was  already  combined  with  the  former  (as  often  hap- 
pens with  Paul).  The  figurative  sense  of  reOpavafiivoi,  pierced  thnAigh,  is  required  by 
ti\e  verb  to  send  amiy.  The  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord  is  that  in  which  He  is 
l>ieascd  to  show  mankind  extraordinary  favors.  Several  Fathers  have  inferred  from 
this  expression  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  only  lasted  a  single  year.  Tliis  is  to  con- 
found the  type  and  the  antitj'pe. 

Vers.  20-23.  The  Preaching. — The  description  of  the  assembly,  ver.  20,  is  so  dra- 
matic that  it  appears  to  have  come  from  an  eye-witness.  The  sense  of  yp^aro.  He 
began  (ver.  21),  is  not  that  these  were  X\\(i  firxt  words  of  His  discourse  ;  this  expression 
describes  the  solemnity  of  the  moment  when,  in  the  midst  of  a  silence  residting  from 
universal  attention,  the  voice  of  Jesus  sounded  through  the  synagogue.  The  last 
words  of  the  verse  signify  literally,  ''  This  word  is  accomplished  in  your  ears  ;"  in 
other  words,  "  This  preaching  to  which  you  are  now  listening  is  iiself  the  realization 
of  this  prophecy."  Such  was  the  text  of  Jesus'  discourse.  Luke,  without  going 
into  His  treatment  of  His  theme  (ccmp.,  for  example,  Matt.  11  :  28-30),  passes  (ver. 
22)  to  the  impression  produced.  It  was  generally  favorable.  The  term  bare  tritncss 
alludes  to  the  favorable  reports  v/hich  had  reached  them  ;  they  proved  for  themselves 
that  His  fame  was  not  exaggerated.  'EOnvjia^ov  signifies  here,  they  tccre  astonished 
(John  7  :  21  ;  Mark  0  :  6),  rather  than  they  admired.  Otherwise  the  transition  ti) 
what  follows  woull  be  too  abrupt,  ^o  W\e  ictm.  gracio^is  wo/'rf.s- describes  rather  the 
matter  of  Jesus'  preaching — its  description  of  the  works  of  divine  grace — than  the 
impres.sion  received  by  His  liearers.  They  were  astonished  at  this  enumeration  of 
marvels  hitherto  unheard  of.  The  words,  ^chich  proceeded  forth  out  of  Ilis  mouth, 
express  the  fulness  with  which  this  proclamation  poured  forth  from  His  lieart. 

Two  courses  were  here  open  to  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  :  either  to  surrender 
themselves  to  the  divine  instinct  which,  while  thej'  listened  to  this  call,  was  drawing 
them  to  Jesus  as  the  anointed  of  whom  Isaiah  spake  ;  or  to  give  place  to  an  intellec- 
tual suggestion,  allow  it  to  suppress  the  emotion  of  the  heart,  and  cause  faith  to 
evaporate  in  criticism.  The}'  took  the  latter  course  ;  is  not  this  Joseph's  son?  An- 
nouncements of  such  importance  appeared  to  them  altogether  out  of  place  in  the 
mouth  of  this  young  man,  whom  they  had  known  from  his  childhood.  "What  a 
contrast  between  the  cold  reserve  of  this  yuej,tion,  and  the  enthusiasm  which  wel- 


153  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

corned  Jesus  everywhere  else  (glorified  of  all,  ver,  15) .'  For  them  this  was  just  such 
a  critical  luomeut  as  was  to  occur  soon  after  for  the  inhabitauts  of  .ferusaleiu  (John 
2  :  13-22).  Jesus  sees  at  a  glance  the  bearing  of  this  remark  which  went  round 
among  His  hearers :  when  the  impressiou  He  has  produced  ends  in  a  question  of 
curiosity,  all  is  lost ;  and  He  tells  them  so. 
'  Vers.  23-27.'*  The  Colloquy.— "  And  Ho  said  to  them,  Ye  will  surely  say  unto  me 
this  proverb.  Physician,  heal  thyself  ;  whatsoever  we  have  heard  done  in  Capernaum, 
do  also  here  in  thy  country.  24.  And  He  said.  Verily  1  say  unto  j'ou.  No  prophet  is 
accepted  in  his  own  country.  25.  But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth,  many  widows  were  in 
Israel  in  the  days  of  Elias,  when  tbe  heaven  was  shut  up  three  j'ears  and  six  mouths, 
when  great  famine  was  throughout  all  the  land  ;  26.  But  unto  none  of  Ihem  was 
Elias  sent,  save  unto  Sarepta,  a  city  of  Sidon,  unto  a  woman  that  was  a  widow.  27. 
And  many  lepers  were  in  Israel  in  the  time  of  Eliseus  the  prophet ;  and  none  of 
them  was  cleansed,  saving  Naaman  the  Syrian."  The  meaning  surely,  which  ttuitus 
often  has,  would  be  of  no  force  here  ;  it  rather  means  wholly,  noiliing  less  than:" 
"  The  question  which  you  have  just  put  to  me  is  only  the  first  sj'uiptom  of  unbelief. 
From  surprise  you  will  pass  to  derision.  Thus  you  will  cjuickly  ariive  at  the  end  of 
the  path  in  which  you  have  just  taken  the  first  step.' '  The  term  TtapajSo/rj,  'parable, 
denotes  any  kind  of  figurative  discourse,  whether  a  complete  narrative  or  a  short  sen- 
tence, couched  in  an  image,  like  proverbs.  Jesus  had  just  attributed  to  Himself, 
applying  Isaiah's  words,  the  ofllce  of  a  restorer  of  humanity.  He  had  described  the 
various  ills  from  Avhieh  His  hearers  were  suffering,  and  directed  their  attention  to 
Himself  as  the  physician  sent  to  heal  them.  This  is  what  the  proverb  cited  refers  to. 
<Comp.  airpoi,  a  physician,  with  idaaaOai.,  to  heal,  ver.  18).  Thus  :  "  You  are  going 
even  to  turn  to  ridicule  what  you  have  just  heard,  and  to  say  to  me,  Thou  who  pre- 
tendest  to  save  humanity  from  its  misery,  begin  by  delivering  thj'self  from  tliine 
own."  But,  as  thus  explained,  the  proverb  does  not  appear  to  be  in  connection 
with  the  following  proposition.  Several  interpreters  have  proposed  another  explana- 
tion :  "  Befoie  attempting  to  save  mankind,  raise  thy  native  town  from  ils  obscurity', 
and  make  it  famous  by  miracles  like  those  which  thou  must  have  wrought  at 
Capernaum."  But  it  is  very  forced  to  explain  tlic  word  thyself  in  the  sense  of  thy 
native  town.  The  connection  of  this  proverb  wilh  the  following  words  is  explained, 
if  we  see  in  the  latter  a  suggestion  of  the  means  by  which  Jesus  may  yet  prevent  the 
contempt  with  which  He  is  threatened  in  His  own  country  :■  "  In  order  that  we  may 
acknowledge  you  to  be  what  you  claim,  the  Saviour  of  the  people,  do  here  some  such 
miracle  as  it  is  said  thou  hast  done  at  Capernaum."  This  speech  betraj^s  an  ironical  " 
doubt  respecting  those  marvellous  things  which  were  attributed  to  Him. 

__It  appears  from  this  passage,  as  v/ell  as  from  Matt.  13  :  58  and  ]\Iark  6  :  5,  that 
Jesus  performed  no  miracles  at  Nazareth.  It  is  even  said  that  "  He  could  do  no  mir- 
acle there."  It  was  a  moral  impossibility,  as  in  other  similar  instances  (Luke  11  :  16, 
29  ;  23  :  35).  It  proceeded  from  the  spirit  in  wdiich  the  demand  was  made  :  it  was 
a  miracle  of  ostentation  that  was  required  of  Him  (the  third  temptation  in  the  desertjjj 
and  it  was  what  He  could  not  grant,  without  doing  ichat  the  Father  had  not  shown  Ilim 

*  Ver.  23.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  read  si^  ttjv  instead  of  ev  ttj.  Ver.  24.  Kacpapvnovu. 
in  i^.  B.  D.  X.  It.  Vg.  instead  of  KaTrepvaovu  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  15 
other  Mjj.  the  Mnn.  and  Vss.  Very  nearlj^  the  same  in  tlie  other  passages.  Ver. 
27.  The  Mss.  are  divided  l)et\veen  'Zi^uvLar  (Alex.)  and  ZiSuvu-,  (T.  R.  Byz.).  Marcioa 
probably  placed  this  verse  after  17  :  19. 


CHAP.   IV.  :  22-27.  153 

(John  5  :  10,  30).  The  iilhisinn  to  the  miracles  at  Capernaum  creates  surprise, 
l)L'CttU8e  none  of  thorn  h:vve  beeu  recordeii  ,  ami  modern  interpreters  generally  tind  in 
these  words  a  proof  of  the  clironological  disorder  whicii  here  prevails  in  Luke's  nar- 
rative, lie  must  h;ive  placed  this  visit  much  too  soon.  This  conclusion,  however, 
is  not  so  certain  as  it  appears.  The  expressiou,  in  tlw  jwwcr  of  (lie  i>pirU  (ver.  14), 
contains  by  implication,  as  we  have  seen,  an  indication  of  miracles  wrought  in  those 
early  days,  and  among  these  we  must  certainly  rank  the  miracle  at  the  marriage  feast 
at  Cana  (John  2).  This  miracle  was  followed  by  a  resideuce  at  Capernaum  (John 
2  :  10),  during  which  Jesus  may  have  performed  some  miraculous  works  ;  and  it  was 
not  till  after  that  that  He  preached  publicly  at  Nazareth.  Tliese  early  miracles  liave 
been  elTaced  by  subsequent  events,  as  that  at  Cuna  would  have  been,  if  John  had  not 
rescued  it  from  oblivion.  If  this  is  so,  the  twenty-third  verse,  which  seems  at  first 
sight  not  to  harmonize  with  the  previous  narrative,  would  just  prove  'with  what 
fidelity'  Luke  has  preserved  the  purport  of  the  sources  whence  he  drew  his  informa- 
tion. John  in  the  same  way  makes  allusion  (3  :  22)  to  miracles  which  he  has  not 
recorded.  The  preposition  e\i  before  the  name  Capernaum  appears  to  be  the  true 
reading:  "  done  «<  and  z'/i /(»w  f^  Capernaum. " 

The  (5j  (ver.  24)  indicates  opposition.  "  So  far  from  seeking  to  obtain  your  con- 
fidence by  a  display  of  miracles,  1  shall  rather  accept,  as  a  prophet,  the  fate  of  all  the 
prophets."  The  proverbial  saying  here  cited  by  Jesus  is  found  in  the  scene  Matt.  18 
and  Mark  G,  and,  with  some  slight  modification,  in  John  4  :  44.  None  have  more 
difficulty  in  discerning  the  exceptional  character  of  an  extraordinary  man  than  those 
who  have  long  lived  with  him  on  terms  of  familiarity.  The  (Jt-  (ver.  25)  is  again  of 
an  adversative  force  :  If  b3'your  unbelief  j'ou  prevent  my  being  j'our  physician,  there 
are  others  whom  you  will  not  prevent  me  from  healing.  The  expression  verily 
announces  something  important  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  the  application  of  the  saj'ing, 
ver.  24,  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  has  a  much  wider  reference  than  the  instance  before 
Him  ;  Nazareth  becomes,  in  His  view,  a  type  of  unbelieving  Israel.  This  is  pioveJ 
by  the  two  following  examples,  which  refer  to  the  relations  of  Israel  with  the  heathen. 
He  speaks  of  a  famineof  three  years  and  a  h;df.  From  the  expressions  of  the  O.  T., 
during  these  years  (1  Kings  17  :  1),  and  the  third  year  (18  :  1),  we  can  only  in  strict- 
ness infer  a  drought  of  two  j'earsand  a  half.  But  as  this  same  figure,  threeycars  and 
a  half,  is  found  in  Jas.  5  ;  17,  it  was  probably  a  tradition  of  the  Jewish  schools. 
The  reasoning  would  be  this  :  The  famine  must  have  lasted  for  a  certain  time  after 
the  drought.  There  would  be  a  desire  also  to  make  out  the  number  which,  ever  since 
the  persecution  of  Anticclius  Epiphanes,  had  become  the  emblem  of  times  of  national 
calamity.  The  expressiou,  all  the  land,  denotes  the  land  of  Israel,  with  the  known 
countries  bordering  upon  it.  The  Alex,  reading  2«5wwas,  the  territory  of  Sidon,  may 
be  a  correction  derived  from  the  LXX.  The  reading  Zi('>u)vo;,  the  city  of  Sidon  itself, 
makes  the  capital  the  centre  on  which  the  surrounding  cities  depend.  Thesomewliat 
incorrect  use  of  el  iir],  except,  is  explained  by  the  application  of  this  restriction  not  to 
the  special  notion  of  hraclitish  widowhood,  but  to  the  idea  of  icidowhood  in  general  ; 
the  same  remark  applies  to  ver.  27,  ]SIatt.  12  :  4,  Gal,  1  ;  19,  and  other  passages.  The 
second  example  (ver.  27)  is  taken  from  2  Kings  5  :  14.  The  passage  2  Kings  7  .  3 
and  some  others  prove  how  very  prevalent  leprosy  was  in  Israel  at  this  time.  The 
prophecy  contained  in  these  examples  is  being  fulfilled  to  this  hour  :  Israel  is  deprived 
of  the  works  of  grace  and  marvels  of  healing  which  tlie  Messiah  works  among  the 
Gentiles. 


154  COMMENTARY   OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Vers.  28-30.*  Conclusion. — The  threat  contained  m  these  examples  exasperates 
them  :  "  Thou  rejectest  us  :  we  reject  thee,"  was  their  virtual  repl}'.  The  terra 
£K3aA/.eiv,  to  cad  out.  denotes  that  they  set  upon  Him  with  violence.  About  forty 
minutes  distant  from  Nazareth,  to  the  south-east,  they  show  a  wall  of  rock  eiirhty  feet 
high,  and  (if  we  add  to  it  a  second  declivity  which  is  found  a  little  below)  about  COO 
feet  above  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  It  is  there  that  tradition  places  this  scene.  But 
Robinson  regards  this  tradition  as  of  no  great  antiquity.  Besides,  it  does  not  agree 
with  the  expression  :  on  icldch  the  city  teas  built.  Nazareth  spreads  itself  out  upon  the 
eastern  face  of  a  mountain,  wheie  there  is  a  perpendicular  wall  of  rock  from  40  to  50 
feet  high.  This  nearer  locality  agrees  better  with  tiie  text.  The  uare  of  the  Alex, 
reading  signifies  :  so  as  to  be  able  to  cast  Him  down.  It  was  for  that  purpose  that 
they  took  the  trouble  of  going  up  so  high.  This  reading  is  preferable  to  the  T.  R.  : 
itS  -Oyfor  the  jmrposeof.  The  deliverance  of  Jesus  was  neither  a  miracle  nor  an 
escape  ;  He  passed  through  the  gr(mp  of  these  infuriated  people  with  a  majesty  which 
overawed  them.  The  history  offers  some  similar  incidents.  We  cannot  say,  as  one 
critic  does  ;  "  In  the  absence  of  any  other  miracle,  He  left  them  this." 

The  greater  part  of  modern  critics  regard  this  scene  as  identical  with  that  of  Malt. 
1?>  and  Mark  G.  placed  by  these  evangelists  at  a  much  later  i)eriod.  They  rely,  1)^1, 
On  the  expifssion  of  surprise:  Is  not  this  the  son  of  Joseph  ?  and  on  the  proverl<ial 
sayins,  ver.  24,  whicii  could  not  have  been  lepeated  twice  within  a  few  months  ;  2d, 
On  the  absence  of  miracles  common  to  the  two  narratives  ;  Sd,  On  the  words  of  ver. 
28,  which  suppose  that  Jesus  had  been  labniing  at  Capernaum  prior  to  this  visit  to 
Niizareth.  But  hnw  in  this  case  are  the  following  differences  to  be  explained  V  1. 
In  Maitliew  and  Maik  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  attempt  to  put  Jesus  to  death. 
All  goes  off  peaceal)iy  to  the  ver}'  end.  2.  Wheie  arecerlain  cases  of  healing  recf<riled 
by  Matthew  (ver.  58)  and  Mark  (ver.  5)  to  be  placed  ?  Before  the  preaching?  This 
is  scarcely  compatible  with  the  words  put  into  tlie  mouth  of  the  inha])itiints  of  Naz- 
areth (ver.  23,  Luke).  After  the  preaching?  Lul^e's  narrative  absokitely  excludes 
this  supposition.  3.  i\Iatthew  and  Maik  place  the  visit  which  they  rehite  at  tlie  cul- 
minating point  of  the  Gaiiisean  ministry  and  toward  its  close,  while  Luke  commences 
his  accnuiit  of  this  mini-try  with  the  narrative  whicli  we  have  just  been  studying. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  this  difference  in  two  ways  :  Luke  may  have 
wished,  iu  placing  this  narrative  here,  to  make  us  see  tlie  reason  which  induced  Jesus 
to  settle  at  Capernaum  instead  of  Nazareth  (Bleek,  Weizsacker)  ;  or  he  may  have 
made  this  scene  the  opening  of  Jesus'  ministry,  becr.use  it  prefigures  the  rejection  of 
the  Jews  and  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  w'hieh  is  the  leading  ifiea  of  his  book 
(Hoitzmaun).  But  how  is  such  an  arbitrary  tiansposition  to  be  liaimonized  v/ith  his 
intenlicm  of  writing  in  order,  so  distinctly  professed  by  Luke  (1:4)?  These  difficulties 
have  not  yet  Ijeen  solved.  Is  it  then  im"possible,  that  after  a  first  attempt  among  His 
fellow  citizens  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  Jesus  should  have  marie  a  second 
later  on  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  quite  natural  that,  before  leavmg  Galilee  foiever 
(and  thus  at  the  very  tinie  to  which  Matthew  and  Mark  refer  their  account),  He 
should  have  addressed  Himself  once  more  to  the  heart  of  His  fellow-countrymen, 
and  that,  if  He  had  again  found  it  closed  against  Him,  the  shock  would  nevertheles.s 
have  been  less  violent"  than  at  the  first  encounter  ?  However  this  may  be,  if  the  two 
niirratives  refer  to  the  same  event,  as  present  criticism  decides,  Luke's  appears  to  me 
to  deserve  the  preference,  and  for  two  reasons  :  1.  The  very  dramatic  and  detailed 
picture  he  has  drawn  leaves  no  room  for  doubting  the  accuracy  anel  absolute  otiginal- 
itj' of  the  source  whence  he  derived  his  information  :  while  the  narratives  of]\[atthew 
and  ]\Iark  betray,  by  the  absence  of  all  distineitive  features,  their  traditional  origin, 
'2.  John  (4  :  4)  cites,  ni  the  beginning  of  his  account  of  the  GfdHo'an  ministry,  the  say- 
ing recorded  by  tiie  three  evangelists  as  to  the  rejection  which  every  prophet  must 
undergo  from  his  own  people.    He  quotes  it  as  a  maxim  already  previously  announced 

*  Ver.  29.  i>.  B.  D.  L.  some  Man.,  ware  instead  of  f(?  ro. 


\U.\v.    IV.  :  :.'S-4  I.  loo 

by  Jesus,  sind  wliich  hud  iufluenced  from  the  first  the  course  of  Ills  ministry.  Now, 
as  the  tliree  Syii.  are  :i,i;ieetl  in  referring  this  saynig  to  a  visit  at  Nazareth,  tliis  qiiola- 
tioii  ill  John  clearly  provt  s  tliul  tlie  visit  in  qurslion  took  place  at  the  coaiinenceiiieut 
(I>uke),  ami  not  in  tlie  niiiUUe  or  at  llie  end  of  the  Galikeaii  ministry  (.Malthevv  and 
Mark).  We  are  lUu.s  bioiiglu  to  the  cunclusious  :  1.  Tiiat  llie  vi>it  rcIitLed  by  Luke 
is  historical  ;  2.  Tiial  ihe  rucoiluciiun  of  it  was  hist  to  tradiLi^n,  iu  couimou  with  many 
other  facts  rchiling  to  tlie  bi  yiuniug  ((f  tlie  ministry  (marriage  at  Caua,  etc.)  ;  '6.  That 
it  was  followed  by  another  toward  the  end  of  the  Gald.-eau  ministry,  iu  the  traditional 
account  of  which  si-veial  incidents  were  inlroduceil  belonging  to  the  former.  As  to 
the  sojourn  at  Ca[)ern;ium,  implied  in  Luke  5  :  2'>>,  we  have  already  seen  that  it  i.4 
included  iu  the  general  dcsciiiiiiou,  ver.  l."j.  John  2  ;  12  proves  that  from  the  first 
the  altenti<m  of  .lesus  was  drawn  to  this  city  as  a  suitable  place  in  which  to  reside. 
His  tirst  disciples  liveil  near  it.  The  synagogue  of  Capernaum  must  then  have  bteu 
one  of  the  first  iu  which  He  preached,  and  consequently  one  of  those  mentioned  in 
ver.  15. 

3.  Residence  at  Capernnnm  :  vers.  31-44.  Five  sections:  \st.  A  general  survey 
(vers.  31  and  32)  ;  2d.  The  healing  of  a  dtmouiuc  (vers.  33-37)  :  Zd.  That  of  Peter's 
mulher-in-law  (veis.  38  and  39)  :  A.th.  Various  cures  (vers.  40-42)  ;  i>th.  Trausiliuu  to 
the  evangelization  of  Galilee  generally. 

First.  Vers.  31  and  32.  The  term.  He  iccjit  doicn,  refers  to  the  situation  of  Caper- 
naum on  the  sea-shore,  iu  opposition  to  that  of  Nazareth  on  the  high  land.  We  have 
to  do  here  with  a  permanent  abode  ;  comp.  John  2  :  12  and  ]\Lut.  4  :  13  {i'/Muv 
Kartl)KTj(7ev  e/f  K.),  as  well  as  the  term,  Ilis  own  city  (Matt.  9  :  1).  The  name  Capernaum 
or  Ciipharnaum  (see  critical  note,  ver.  23)  does  not  occur  in  the  O.  T.  From  this  it 
would  seem  that  it  was  not  a  very  ancient  place.  The  name  may  signify,  town  of 
INah>Lm  (alluding  to  the  prophet  of  this  name),  or  (with  more  probability)  town  of 
conaolation.  The  name,  according  lo  Josephus,  belonged  properly  to  a  fountain  ;*  in 
the  only  passage  iu  which  he  menlious  this  town,  he  calls  it  Keoapvufjii]  \  Until 
lately,  it  was  very  generally  admitted  that  the  site  of  Capernaum  was  maiked  by  the 
ruins  of  Teil-Hum  towatd  the  northern  end  of  the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  to  the  west  of 
the  embouchure  of  the  Joidan.  Since  Robinson's  time,  however,  several,  and  among 
the  rest  M.  llenan,  have  inclined  to  look  for  it  farther  south,  in  the  rich  plain  wl:ere 
s!and3  at  the  present  day  the  town  of  Khan-Minyeh,  of  which  Josephus  has  left  us 
such  a  fine  description.  Kcim  pronounces  \cry  decidedly  in  favor  of  this  latter 
opinion,  and  supports  it  l)y  reasons  of  great  weight. +  Agriculture,  fishing,  and  com- 
merce, favored  by  the  road  frum  Damascus  lo  Plolemais,  which  passed  through  or 
near  Capernaum,  had  made  it  a  nourishing  city.  It  was  therefore  the  most  important 
town  of  the  northern  district  of  the  lake  country.  It  was  the  Jewish,  as  Tiberias 
was  the  heathen,  capital  of  Galilee  (a  similar  relation  to  that  between  Jerusalem  and 
Cajsarea). 

The  31st  and  32d  verses  form  the  fifth  resting-place  or  general  summary  in  (he 
nanative  (see  vers.  14,  15).  The  analytical  form  ?>  i^kUokuv  indicates  habit.  In  the 
parallel  place  in  Mark,  the  imperf.  i6i6aaKev  puts  the  act  of  teaching  in  direct  and 
special  connection  with  the  following  fact.  By  the  authority  (ikovala)  which  charac- 
terized the  words  of  Jesus,  Luke  means,  not  the  power  employed  in  the  healing  of 

*  "  Bell.  Jud. "  iii.  10,  8  :  "To  the  mildness  of  the  climate  is  added  the  advan- 
tage of  a  copiuus  spring,  which  the  inhabitants  call  Cupharnaum." 

t  Jos.  "  Vita,"  ij  72 

X  Delitzch,  iu  his  little  tractate,  "  Ein  Tag  in  Capernaum,"  does  not  hesitate  to 
recognize  in  the  great  field  cf  ruins  of  Tell-Iliim  the  remains  of  Capernaum. 


15G  CO.MMEXTAJIY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

the  demoniiiu  (to  express  this  he  would  rather  have  used  dvvafiii,  force),  but  the  com- 
manding chaiacter  which  distinguished  His  teaching.  Jesus  did  not  dissecl  texts, 
like  the  Rabbis  ;  He  laid  down  truths  which  carried  with  them  their  own  evidence. 
He  spoke  as  a  legislator,  not  as  a  lawyer  (Matt.  7  .  28,  29).  The  following  incident 
proves  ilie  right  He  had  to  teach  in  this  way.  It  appears  that  it  was  with  this  31st 
verse  that  Maicion  commenced  his  Gospel,  prefacing  it  with  the  fixing  of  the  dale, 
iii.  1  ;  "In  the  loth  year  of  the  government  of  Tiberius,  Jesus  went  down  into  the 
town  of  Galilee  called  Capernaum."*  The  complement  understood  or  we?i^  doicn 
was  evidently ,  from  heaven.  As  to  the  visit  to  Nazareth,  Marcion  places  it  after  the 
scene  which  follows  ;  this  transposition  was  certainl}'^  dictated  by  ver.  23. 

Second.  Vers.  33-37.  f  Should  the  possessed  mentioned  by  the  evangelists  be  re- 
garded simply  as  perswna  afflicted  after  the  same  manner  as  our  lunatics,  whose  de- 
rangement was  attributed  by  Jewish  and  lieathen  superstition  to  supernatuial  in- 
fluence? Or  did  God  really  permit,  at  this  extraoidinary  epoch  in  history,  an  ex- 
ceptional display  of  diabolical  power?  Or,  lastly,  s-hould  certain  morbid  conditions 
now  existing,  which  medical  science  attributes  to  purely  natural  causes,  either 
physical  or  psychical,  be  put  down,  at  the  present  day  also,  to  the  action  of  higher 
causes?  These  are  the  three  hypotheses  which  present  themselves  to  the  mind. 
Several  of  the  demoniacs  healed  by  Jesus  certainly  exhibit  symptoms  very  like  those 
which  are  observed  at  the  present  day  in  those  who  are  simply  afflicted  ;  for  example, 
the  epileptic  child,  Luke  9  :  37  e<  seq.,  and  parall.  These  strange  conditions  in  every 
case,  therefore,  were  based  on  a  real  disorder,  either  physical  or  physicu-p.^ychical. 
The  evangelists  are  so  far  from  being  ignorant  of  this,  that  they  constantly  class  the 
demoniacs  under  the  category  of  the  sick  (vers.  40  and  41),  never  under  that  of  the 
vicious.  The  possessed-  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  children  of  tlie  devi', 
(John  8).  Nevertheless  tiiese  afflicted  persons  are  constantly  made  a  class  by  them- 
selves. On  what  does  this  distinction  rest  ?  On  this  leading  fact,  that  those  who  are 
simply  sick  enjoy  their  own  personal  consciousness,  and  are  in  possession  of  their 
own  will  ;  while  in  the  possessed  these  faculties  are,  as  it  were,  confiscated  to  a 
foreign  power,  with  which  the  sick  person  identifies  himself  (ver.  34,  8  :  30).  IIow 
is  this  peculiar  symptom  to  be  explained  ?  Josephus,  under  Hellenic  influence, 
thought  that  it  should  be  attributed  to  the  souls  of  wicked  men  who  came  after  death 
seeking  a  domicile  in  the  living.  %  In  the  eyes  of  the  people  the  strange  guest  was  a 
demon,  a  fallen  angel.  This  latter  opinion  .Jesus  must  have  shared.  Strictly  speak- 
ing, His  colloquies  with  the  demoniacs  might  be  explained  by  an  accommodation  to 
popular  prejudice,  and  the  sentiments  of  those  who  were  thus  afflicted  ;  but  in  His 
private  conversations  with  His  disciples.  He  must,  whatever  was  true,  have  discliis(d 
His  real  thoughts,  and  sought  to  enlighten  them.  But  He  does  nothing  of  the  kird  ; 
on  the  contrary.  He  gives  the  apostles  and  disciples  i[)ovieT  Xo  cast  out  devil's  {^  -A), 
and  to  tread  on  nil  the  power  of  the  enemy  (10  :  19).  In  Mark  9  :  29,  He  distinguishes 
a  certain  class  of  demons  that  can  only  be  driven  out  bv  prayer  (anrl  fasting  V).  In 
lAike  11  :31)and  parall.  Heexplair-  the  facility  with  which  He  casts  out  demons 
by  the  personal  victory  which  He  had  achieved  over  Satan  at  the  beginning.  He 
therefore  admitted  the  intervention  of  this  being  in  these  mysterious  conditions.     If 

*  Terlullian,  "  Contra  Marc,"  iv.  7. 

t  Ver.  33.  i».  B.  L.  V.  Z.  omit  Ityuv.  Yer.  35.  ».  B.  D.  L.  V.  Z.  several  Mnn.  read 
crro  instead  of  fi. 

X  "Bell.  Jud."  vii.  6.  a 


CHAi'.   IV.  :  33-;>i.  157 

this  is  so,  is  it  not  iiatural  to  ailniit  Ihat  IIo  who  excrcisorl  over  this,  as  ovor  all  other 
kiiuls  of  mahulies,  such  absolult!  power,  best  uiulurslootl  its  uaturu,  and  that  there- 
fore His  views  upon  tlie  point  siiould  determine  ours? 

Arc  there  not  times  wiien  God  permits  a  superior  evil  power  to  invade  humanity? 
Just  as  God  sent  Jesus  at  a  period  in  liistory  when  moral  and  soeial  evil  had  reached 
its  culminating  point,  did  not  He  also  permit  an  cxliaordinary  manifestation  of  dia- 
bolical  power  to  take  place  at  the  same  time?  By  this  means  Jesus  could  he  prch 
claimed  externally  and  visibly  as  the  conqueror  of  the  enemy  of  men,  as  He  who 
came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  in  the  moral  sense  of  the  word  (1  John  3  :  8). 
All  the  miiacles  of  healing  have  a  similar  design.  They  are  signs  by  which  Jesus  is 
revealed  as  the  author  of  spiritual  deliverances  corresponding  to  these  phj'sical  cures. 
An  objucliou  is  found  in  the  silence  of  the  fourth  (Jospel  ;  but  John  in  no  way  pro- 
fessed to  relate  all  he  knew.  He  sa\'s  himself,  30  30,  31.  thut  there  are  besides  many 
miracles,  and  different  miracles  {tzoa'au,  kch  aA/in),  which  he  does  not  relate. 

As  to  the  present  state  of  things,  it  must  not  be  compared  with  the  limes  of  Jesus. 
Not  only  might  the  latter  have  been  of  an  exceptional  character  ;  but  the  beneficent 
inlluence  which  the  Gos[)el  has  exercised  in  restoring  man  to  himself,  and  bringing 
his  conscience  under  the  power  of  the  holy  and  true  God,  may  have  brought  about  a 
complete  change  in  the  spiritual  world.  Lastly,  apart  from  all  this,  is  there  nothing 
mysterious,  from  a  scientific  point  of  view,  in  certain  cases  of  mental  derangement, 
particularly  in  those  conditions  in  which  the  will  is,  as  it  were,  confiscated  to,  and 
paralyzed  by,  an  unknown  power  ?  And  after  deduction  has  been  made  for  all  those 
forms  of  mental  maladies  which  a  discriminating  analysis  can  explain  by  moral  and 
physical  lelalions,  will  not  an  impartial  physician  agree  that  there  is  a  residuum  of 
cases  respecting  which  he  must  say  :  Non  liquet? 

Possession  is  a  caricature  of  inspiration.  The  latter,  attaching  itself  to  the  moral 
esvseuce  of  a  man,  confirms  him  forever  iu  the  possession  of  his  true  self  ;  the  former, 
while  profoundly  opposed  to  the  nature  of  tiie  subject,  lakes  advantage  of  its  state  of 
morbid  passivity,  and  leads  to  the  forfeiture  of  persimality.  The  one  is  the  highest 
work  of  God  ;  the  other  of  (he  devil. 

The  question  has  been  asked,  IIovv  could  a  man  in  a  state  of  mental  derangement, 
and  who  would  be  regarded  as  unclean  (ver.  33),  be  found  in  the  synagogue  ?  Per- 
haps his  malad}'  had  not  broken  out  before  as  it  did  at  this  moment — Luke  says 
literally:  a  man  who  had  a  spirit  {nn  afflatus)  of  an  unclean  devil.  In  this  expression, 
which  is  only  found  in  Rev.  10  :  14,  the  term  spirit  or  afflatus  denotes  the  influence 
of  the  unclean  devil,  of  the  being  who  is  the  author  of  it.  The  crisis  which  breaks 
out  (ver.  3-1)  results  from  the  opposing  action  of  those  two  powers  which  enter  into 
conflict  with  each  other — the  influence  of  the  evil  spirit,  and  that  of  the  person  and 
word  of  Jesus.  A  hoi}'  power  no  sooner  begins  to  act  in  the  sphere  in  which  this 
wretched  creature  lives,  than  the  unclean  power  which  has  dominion  over  him  feels 
its  empire  threatened.  This  idea  is  suggested  by  the  contrast  between  the  epithet 
vhclean  applied  to  the  diabolical  spirit  (ver.  33),  and  the  address  :  Thou  art  the  Holy 
One  of  God(ver.  34).  The  exclamation  la,  ah!  (ver.  34)  is  properly  the  imperative  of 
idu,  let  he!  It  is  a  cry  like  that  of  a  criminal  Avho,  when  suddenly  apprehended  by 
the  police,  calls  out :  Loose  me  !  This  is  also  what  is  meant  in  this  instance  by  the 
expression,  in  frequent  use  amonij  the  Jews  with  different  applications  :  What  is 
there  heticeen  vs  and  thee?  of  which  the  meaning  here  is  :  "Wliat  have  we  to  contend 
about?    What  evil  have  we  done  thee?    The  plural  we  does  not  apply  to  the  devil 


158  COMMENTARY    ON"    ST.   LUKE. 

and  to  the  possessed,  since  the  latter  still  identifies  himself  tiltogelher  -vvilli  the 
former.  The  devil  speaks  in  the  name  of  all  the  other  spirits  of  his  kind  vviiich  have 
succeeded  in  obtaining-  possession  of  a  human  being.  Tlie  perdition  whicli  he  dreads 
is  being  sent  into  the  abyss  where  such  spirits  await  the  judgment  (8  ;  31).  Tliis 
abyss  is  the  emptiness  of  a  creature  that  possesses  no  point  of  support  outside  itself — 
neither  in  God,  as  the  faithful  angels  have,  nor  in  the  world  of  sense,  as  sinful  men 
endowed  with  a  l)ody  have.  In  order  to  remedy  this  inward  destitution,  lliey  en- 
deavor to  unite  themselves  to  some  human  being,  so  as  to  enter  tiirough  this  medium 
into  contact  with  sensible  realities.  Whenever  a  loss  of  this  position  befalls  them, 
they  fail  back  into  the  abyss  of  their  empty  self-dependence  {vide  subjecUvite).  The 
term  Holy  One  of  God  expresses  the  character  in  which  this  being  recognized  his 
deadly  enemy.  We  cannot  be  surprised  that  such  homage  sliould  be  altogether  re- 
pugnant to  the  feelings  of  Jesus.  He  did  not  acknowledge  it  as  the  utterance  of  an 
individual  vvrhose  will  is  free,  which  is  the  oul}''  homage  that  can  please  Ilim  ;  and 
He  sees  what  occasion  may  be  taken  from  such  facts  to  exhibit  His  work  in  a  sus- 
picious light  (11  :  15).  He  therefore  puts  an  end  to  this  scene  immediately  by  these 
two  peremptory  words  (vcr.  35) :  Silence!  and  Gome  out.  By  the  words  ik  avTov,  of 
Mm,  Jesus  forcibly  distinguishes  between  the  two  beings  thus  far  mingled  together. 
This  divorce  is  the  condition  of  the  cure.  A  terrible  convulsion  marks  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  afflicted  man.  The  tormentor  does  not  let  go  his  victim  without  subject- 
ing him  to  a  final  torture.  The  words,  without  having  done  him  any  hurt,  reproduce 
in  a  striking  manner  the  impression  of  eye-witnesses  :  they  ran  toward  the  unhappy 
man,  expecting  to  find  him  dead  ;  and  to  their  surprise,  on  lifting  him  up,  they  find 
him  perfectly  restored. 

"We  may  imagine  the  feelings  of  the  congregation  when  they  beheld  such  a  scene 
as  this,  in  Avhich  the  tw^o  powers  that  dispute  the  empire  of  mankind  had  in  a  sensi- 
ble manner  just  come  into  conflict.  Vers.  36  and  37  describe  this  feeling.  Several 
have  applied  the  expression  this  word  ("What  a  word  m  this  !  A.  "V.)  to  the  command 
of  Jesus  v.hi'  h  the  devil  had  just  obeyed.  But  a  reference  to  ver.  32  obliges  us  to 
take  the  teim  word  in  its  natural  sense,  the  preaching  of  Jesus  in  general.  The 
authority  with  which  He  taught  (ver.  32)  found  its  guarantee  in  the  authority  backed 
by poicer  (diva/jii),  with  which  He  forced  the  devils  themselves  to  render  obedience. 
The  power  which  Jesus  exercises  by  His  simple  word  is  opposed  to  the  prescriptions 
and  pretences  of  the  exorcists  ;  His  cures  differ  from  theirs,  just  as  His  teaching  did 
from  tliat  of  the  scribes.     In  both  cases  He  speaks  as  a  master. 

The  account  of  this  miracle  is  omitted  by  Matthew.  It  is  found  with  some  slight 
variations  in  Mark  (1  :  23  et  seq.).  It  is  placed  by  him,  as  by  Luke,  at  the  bcgmnmg 
of  this  sojourn  of  Jesus  at  Capernaum,  Instead  of  f>li>av,  havitig  thrown  hnn,  Mark 
spys,  crraputav,  having  torn,  violently  convulsed  him.  Instead  of  What  word  is  thi-f 
Mark  makes  the  multitude  sav  :  What  nero  doctrine  is  thisf—nn  expression  which 
.To-iees  with  the  sense  which  we  have  given  to  Aoyoc:  in  Luke.  Tlie  mraning  of  I  he 
epithet  nno  in  the  mouth  of  the  people  misrht  be  rendered  by  the  common  exclama- 
tion ;  Here  is  something  new  !  According  to  Bleek.  Mark  borrowed  his  nairative 
from  Luke.  But  how  very  paltry  and  insignificant  these  changes  wnihd  seem  '  Ac- 
cording- to  Holtzmann.  the  original  source  was  the  primitive  Mark  (A.),  tlie  nairative 
of  which  has  been  reproduced^exactly  bv  our  Mark  ;  while  Luke  has  modified  it  with 
a  view  to  exalt  the  miracle,  bv  changing,  for  example,  having  torn  inio  hamrg 
thrown,  and  by  addincr  on  h's  own  autliority  the  details,  ivith  a  loud  voice,  and  with- 
out having  done  him  any  hurt.  Hollzmann  congratulates  himself,  afler  tiiis,  on 
having  made  Luke's  df'peudence  on  the  Proto-Mark  (iuite  evident.     But  the  suiiple 


('II A 1'.  IV.  :  oS,  :>\).  loU 

term  leord,  which  in  Luke  (ver.  \W)  supplies  llie  place  of  Mark's  emphatic  expression, 
this  new  doctrine,  coulradicis  lliis  exphuiiition.  And  if  this  miracle  was  in  tlie 
primitive  i\lark,  from  which,  according  to  lloltzmann,  jMatlhew  must  also  have 
tliiiwn  his  narrative,  how  came  the  latter  to  umit  an  incident  so  striking?  Iloltz- 
miinn's  answer  is,  that  this  evangelist  thought  another  example  of  a  similar 
cure,  that  of  the  demoniac  at  CJadaraT  the  more  striUing  ;  and  to  compensate  for  the 
(.nns'siou  of  the  healing  at  Capernaum,  he  has  put  down  two  demoniacs,  instead  of 
om-,  to  Gadara  .  .  .  !  lluvv  can  sucti  a  cliildish  procedure  be  imputed  to  a  grave 
historian  ? 

T/drd.  Vers.  38  and  39.*  Peter,  according  to  our  narrative,  seems  to  have  lived 
at  Capernaum,  Accortliug  to  John  1  :  45,  he  was  oiiginally  of  Bethsaida.  The  two 
places  weie  very  near,  and  might  have  had  a  conunon  synagogue  ;  or  while  origi- 
ually  belonging  to  the  one,  Peter  might  have  taken  up  lus  abode  at  the  other.  The 
term  TTf.'Oepfi  (not /i;?7py,n)  proves  that  Peter  was  man  ied,  which  agrees  with  1  Cor. 
9  :5.  It  is  possible  that  from  this  time  Jesus  took  up  Ilis  abode  in  Peter  s  house.  Matt. 
17  :  24  et  seq.  According  to  Mark  1  :  29,  His  train  of  disciples  consisted,  not  only  of 
Simon  and  xVndrew,  but  also  of  James  and  John.  This  already  existing  associatioa 
suppo.ses  a  prior  connection  between  .Jesus  and  these  j'ouag  fialiermen,  which  is  ex- 
plained in  John  1.  Luke  does  not  name  the  companions  of  Jesus.  We  only  see  by 
the  wokIs,  she  arose  and  ministered  unto  them  (ver.  30).  that  He  was  not  alone.  The 
expression  n-i-perd?  fikyai  does  not  appear  to  be  used  heie  in  the  technical  sense  which 
it  has  in  ancient  books  of  medicine,  where  it  denotes  a  particular  kind  of  fever.  In 
Luke,  Jesus  A^'rt(f.s  down  over  the  sick  woman.  This  was  a  means  of  tuteiing  into 
spiiilual  conmnmication  with  her  ;  comp.  Peter's  words  to  the  impotent  man  (Acts 
3:4):  Look  on  me.  In  Matthew,  He  touches  the  sick  woman  with  His  hand.  This 
action  has  the  same  design.  In  xMark,  He  takes  her  by  the  hand  to  lift  her  up.  How 
are  these  variations  to  be  explained,  if  all  three  drew  from  the  same  source,  or  if  one 
derived  his  account  from  the  other  t  Luke  says,  literally,  He  rebuked  the  fever ;  as 
if  He  saw  in  tiie  disease  some  principle  hostile  to  man.  This  agrees  with  .John  8  ■  44, 
where  the  devil  is  called  the  murderer  of  man.  It  was  doubtless  at  the  time  of  the 
evening  meal  (ver.  40).  The  first  use  which  the  sick  woman  makes  of  her  recovered 
strength  was  to  serve  up  a  repast  for  her  guests.  Hollzmann  finds  a  proof  in  the 
plur.  auroii,  "  she  served  them,"  that  Luke's  narrative  depends  on  Mark  :  for  thus 
far  Luke  has  only  spoken  of  .Jesus  :  He  came  down  (ver.  31),  He  entered  (ver.  38). 
But  this  proof  is  weak.  In  the  description  of  the  public  scene,  Luke  would  only 
present  tiie  principal  person,  Jesus  :  while  in  the  account  of  the  domestic  scene  he 
w^ould  naturally  mention  also  the  other  persons,  since  they  had  all  the  same  need  of 
being  waited  upon. 

In  Luke  and  Mark  the  position  of  this  narrative  is  very  nearly  the  same,  with 
merely  tills  difference,  that  in  the  latter  it  follows  the  calling  of  the  four  dis(;iples, 
wliile  in  Luke  it  precedes  it.  In  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  piaced  very  much 
later— after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  As  to  the  details,  Matthew  is  almost 
identical  with  Mark.  Thus  the  twoevanacelists  which  agree  as  to  the  time  (Luke  and 
Mark)  differ  most  as  to  the  details,  and  the  two  which  come  nearest  to  each  other  in 
details  (M:itlhp>v  and  Mark)  differ  considerably  as  to  lime.  How  can  this  singular 
relation  be  explained  if  they  drew  from  common  written  sources,  or  if  they  copied 
from  each  otlierV  Luke  here  omits  Andrew,  whom  Mark  mentions.  Why  so.  if  he 
copied  from  the  primitive  Mark  ?    Had  he  any  animosity  against  Andrew  ?    Holtz- 

*  Ver.  38.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  a-ro  and  «. 


I'JO  COMMEXTAliY    UX    ST.   LUKE. 

intmn  replies  :  Because  he  does  not  speak  of  Andrew  in  what  follows.     As  if,  in 
Murk  himself,  he  was  any  the  more  mentioned  in  the  incidents  that  follow  ! 

Fourth.  Vers.  40  and  41.*  Here  we  have  one  of  those  periods  when  the  miracu- 
lous power  of  Jesus  was  most  abundantly  displayed.  We  shall  meet  again  with  somu 
of  these  culmitialini>-  points  in  the  course  of  His  ministry.  A  siiuilar  rhythm  is 
found  HI  the  career  of  the  apostles.  Peter  at  Jeiusalem  (Acts  5  :  15,  10).  and  Paul  at 
E|)hesus  (19  :  11,  13),  exercise  their  miraculous  power  to  a  degree  in  which  thuy  ap- 
pear to  have  exhibited  it  at  no  other  time  in  their  life  ;  it  was  at  the  same  time  the 
culminating  point  of  their  ministry  of  the  woid. 

The  memory  of  this  remarkable  evening  must  have  fixed  itself  indelibly  in  the 
early  tradition  ;  for  the  account  of  this  time  has  been  preserved,  in  almost  identical 
terms,  in  our  three  Syn.  The  sick  came  in  crowds.  The  expression,  when  the  sun 
teas  setting,  shows  that  this  time  had  been  waited  for.  And  that  not  "  because  it 
was  th'j  cool  hour,"  us  many  have  thought,  but  because  it  was  the  end  of  the  Sab- 
batii,  and  carrying  a  sick  person  was  regarded  as  work  (.John  5  :  10).  The  whole 
cily,  as  Maik,  in  his  simple,  natural,  and  somewhat  emphatic  style,  says,  was  gather- 
ed together  at  the  door.  According  to  our  narrative.  Jesus  made  use  on  this  occasion 
of  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Luke  cannot  have  invented  this  detail  himself  ;  and  the 
others  would  not  have  omitted  it  if  it  had  belonged  to  their  alleged  common  source 
of  information.  Therefore  Luke  had  some  special  source  in  which  this  detail  was 
found,  and  not  this  alone.  This  rite  is  a  symbol  of  any  kind  of  transmission, 
■whether  of  a  gift  or  an  otflce  (Moses  and  Joshua.  Deut.  34  :  9),  or  of  a  blessing  (tJie 
patriarchal  blessings),  or  of  a  duty  (the  transfer  to  the  Levites  of  the  natural  functions 
of  the  eldest  sons  in  every  family),  or  of  guilt  (the  guilty  Israelite  laying  his  hands  on 
the  head  of  the  victim),  or  of  the  sound,  vital  strength  enjoyed  by  the  person  who 
imparts  it  (cures).  It  is  not  certain'.}^  that  Jesus  could  not  have  worked  a  cure  by 
His  mere  word,  or  even  by  a  simple  act  of  volition.  But,  in  the  first  place,  there  is 
something  profoundly  human  in  this  act  of  laying  the  hand  on  the  head  of  any  one 
whom  one  desires  to  benefit.  It  is  a  gesture  of  tenderness,  a  sign  of  beneficial  com- 
munication such  as  the  heart  cra^'es.  Then  this  symbol  might  be  morally  necessary. 
Whenev(^r  Jesus  avails  Himself  of  any  material  means  to  work  a  cure,  whether  it  be 
the  sound  of  His  voice,  or  clay  made  of  His  spittle.  His  aim  is  to  establish  in  the  form 
best  adapted  to  the  particular  case,  a  personal  tie  between  the  sick  person  and  Him- 
self ;  for  He  desires  not  only  to  heal,  but  to  effect  a  restoration  to  God,  by  creating 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  sick  a  sense  of  union  with  Himself  the  organ  of  divine 
grace  in  the  midst  of  mankind.  This  moral  mm  explains  the  variety  of  the  means 
employed.  Had  they  been  curative  means — of  the  nature  of  magnetic  passes,  for 
example — they  couid  not  have  varied  so  much.  But  as  they  were  addressed  to  the 
sick  person's  soul.  Jesus  chose  them  in  such  a  way  that  His  action  was  adapted  to  its 
character  or  position.  In  the  case  of  a  deaf  mute.  He  put  His  fingers  into  his  ears  ; 
He  anointed  the  eyes  of  a  blind  man  with  His  spittle,  etc.  In  this  way  their  healing 
a{)peared  as  an  emanation  from  His  person,  and  attached  them  to  Him  by  an  indis- 
soluble tie.     Their  restored  life  was  felt  to  be  dependent  on  Hi.s.     The  repetition  of 

*  Ver.  40.  B.  D.  Q.  X.  eTririOeii;  instead  of  EmfJetS.  B.  D.  It.  Syr.,  eOepanevev  in- 
stead of  eOeomrevnev.  Ver.  41.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  Kpavyai^avra  and 
Kpal^ovra.  The  T.  R.,  with  14  Mjj.  almost  all  the  Mnn.  Syr.,  reads  o  Xpcaros  before 
o  vioS  Tov  Qeov,  contrary  to  J>.  B.  C.  D.  F.  L.  R.  X.  Z.  Itp'"e"<!"e^  which  omit  it. 


cnw.  IV.  :  40-1-}.  101 

tbe  act'of  ]ayiu2;  on  of  hands  in  each  case  was  with  the  same  view.  The  sick  person, 
being  tlius  visibly  put  iuio  a  state  of  physical  dcpentlence,  would  necessarily  in- 
fer his  ninrai  dependence.  The  Alex,  readings  i-tnOtii,  lut/iiif/  on,  tOepnTrive,  JJe 
hailed,  must  he  preferred.  The  aor.  (in  the  T.  K.)  indicates  the  completed  act,  the 
imperf.  its  indefinite  continuation  :  "  Laying  His  hands  ou  each  of  them,  lie  healed, 
and  kept  on  healing,  as  many  as  came  for  it." 

The  demoniacs  are  mentioneil  in  ver.  41  among  the  sick,  but  as  forming  a  class 
by  themselves.  This  agrees  with  what  we  have  stated  respecting  their  condition. 
There  must  have  been  some  phjsico-psychical  disoiganizalion  ta  alTord  access  to  the 
malign  influence.  The  words  o  X/u^rroS  are  correctly  omitted  by  the  Alex.  ;  they  liave 
been  taken  from  the  second  part  of  the  verse.  From  the  fact  that  the  multitude 
translated  the  exclamation  of  the  devils,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  into  this,  It  in  the 
Christ,  we  have  no  ri  j.ht  to  conclude  that  the  two  titles  were  identical.  By  the  former, 
the  devils  acknowledged  the  divine  character  of  this  man,  who  made  tliem  feel  to 
forcibly  His  sovereign  power.  The  latter  was  the  translation  of  this  homage  into 
ordiuar}'  speech  by  the  Jljvish  multitude.  Was  it  the  design  of  the  devil  to  com- 
promise Jesus  by  stirring  up  a  dangerous  excitement  in  Israel  in  His  favor,  or  by 
making  it  believed  that  there  was  a  bond  of  common  interest  between  His  cause  and 
theirs?  It  is  more  natural  to  regard  this  e.xclamatijn  as  an  involuntary  homage,  an 
anticipation  of  that  compulsory  adoration  wliich  all  creatures,  even  those  which  arc 
under  the  earth,  as  St.  Paul  says  (Phil.  2  :  10),  shall  one  day  render  to  Jesus.  They 
are  before  the  representative  of  Him  before  whom  they  tremble  {,1ns.  2  : 1'J).  Jesus, 
•who  had  rejected  in  the  desert  all  complicity  with  their  head,  could  not  think  of 
deriving  advantage  fiom  this  impure  liomage. 

Fifth.  Vers.  42-44.*  The  more  a  seivaut  of  God  exerts  himself  in  outwaid 
activity,  the  more  need  there  is  that  he  should  renew  his  inward  strength  by  medita- 
tion. Jesus  also  was  subject  to  this  law.  Every  morning  He  had  to  obtain  afresh 
whatever  was  neeiled  for  the  day  ;  for  He  lived  by  the  Father  (Jolin  G  :  57).  He 
went  out  before  day  from  Peter's  house,  where  no  doubt  He  was  staying.  Instead 
of,  And  when  it  was  day,  Mai  k  sa)'S,  White  it  was  still  very  dark  (evwxov  Unv).  In- 
stead of,  the  multitude  sought  Ilim,  Mark  says,  Simon  and  they  that  were  with  him 
followed  after  Ilim  .  .  .  and  said  unto  Him,  All  mm  seek  Thee.  Instead  of, 
2  must  2^reach,  ^lark  makes  Jesus  sa}'.  Let  us  yo,  that  I  may  j^reach  .  .  .  etc. 
These  shades  of  difference  are  easily  explained,  if  the  substance  of  these  narratives 
was  furnished  by  oral  tradition  ;  but  they  become  childish  if  they  are  drawn  fiom 
tbe  same  written  source.  Holtzmann  thinks  that  Luke  genet alizes  and  obscures  the 
narrative  of  the  primitive  Mark.  The  llurd  evangelist  would  have  labored  very  use- 
lessly to  do  that  I  Bleek  succeeds  no  better  in  explaining  Mark  by  Luke,  than  Holtz- 
mann Luke  by  Mark.  If  Mark  listened  to  the  narrations  of  Peter,  it  is  intelligible 
that  he  should  have  added  to  the  traditional  narrative  the  few  stiiknig  features  whit  h 
are  peculiar  to  him,  and  jiarticulaily  that  which  refers  to  the  part  taken  by  Simon  en 
that  day.  As  we  read  Mark  1  :  30,  37  we  fanc}"-  we  hear  Peter  t(.41ing  the  .story  him- 
self, and  saying  :  "  And  we  found  Him,  and  said  to  Ilim,  All  men  seek  Thee.  '  These 
special  features,  omitted  in  the  general  tradition,  are  wanting  in  Luke.     The  wonls 

*  Ver.  43.  i^.  B.  ().  T).  L.  X.  some  ^Inn.,  aveara^nv  instead  of  a-^renraluai.  S.  B. 
L.  some  Mnn.,f7r£  tovto  instead  of  ej?  tovto.  Ver.  44.  !*.  B.  D  Q.,  eii  ra-  mivnywyns 
instead  of  ev  rais  awayuyaa.  ^.  B.  C.  L.  Q.  R.,  several  Mnn.,  t7?5  lovdaia?,  instead 
of  T7i^  Ta?u/.aiai. 


10:i  C'U-MMENTAIIY    OX    ST.   JAKK. 

of  Jesus,  ver.  43,  might  be  explained  by  a  tacit  opposition  between  the  ideas  of  preach- 
ing and  healing.  "  If  I  staj'ed  at  Capernaum,  I  should  soon  have  nothing  else  to 
do  but  woik  cures,  while  I  am  sent  that  I  may  preach  also."  But  in  this  case  the 
\eib  Evayye/uaaaOai  should  commence  the  phrase.  On  the  contrary,  the  emphasis  is 
on  the  words,  io  other  cities  .  .  .  Jesus  opposes  to  the  idea  of  a  stationary  min- 
istry at  Cripernuum  that  of  itinerant  preaching.  The  term  evayye?iaaafjai,  to  tell 
news,  is  very  appropriate  to  express  this  idea.  The  message  ceases  to  be  news  when 
the  preaclier  remains  in  the  same  jilace.  But  in  this  expression  of  Jesus  there  is, 
besides,  a  contrast  between  Capernaum,  the  large  cit}%  to  wliich  Jesus  in  no  way 
desires  to  confine  His  care,  and  the  smaller  towns  of  the  vicinity,  designated  in  Mark 
by  the  characteristic  term  KomnoTro/.eci,  which  are  equally  intrusted  to  His  love.  It 
is  diffi<"ult  to  decide  between  the  two  readings,  aTreaTuXTjv,  I  have  been  sent  in  order 
to  .  .  .  and  cnriaTnTifxai,  my  misxion  is  to  .  .  .  The  second  perhaps  agrees 
belter  with  the  context.  A  very  similar  various  reading  is  found  in  the  parallel 
passage,  Maik  1  :  38  {iii/Mov  or  k^f/rjAvOd).  Mark's  term  appears  to  allude  to  the  in- 
carnation ;  Luke's  only  refers  to  the  mission  of  Jes.us.  The  readings  e'li  tus 
cvvayuyaS  an^  kv  rais  amayuyalQ,  ver.  44,  recur  in  Mark  1  :  39.  TJie  former  appears 
lei^s  legular,  which  makes  it  more  probable  :  Jesus  carried  the  preaching  into  the 
synagogues.  The  absurd  reading  rj;5  '\ov6aiac,  which  is  found  in  the  six  principal 
Alex.,  should  be  a  caution  to  blmd  partisans  of  this  text. 

THE  MIBACLES  OF  JESUS. 

We  shall  here  add  a  few  thoughts  on  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in  general.  Four 
methods  are  us,e<l  to  set  rid  of  the  miraculous  element  in  the  Gospel  history  :  First. 
Ti>e  explanation  called  natural,  which  upholds  tiie  credibility  of  the  narrative,  hut 
cxplidns  the  text  in  such  a  way  that  its  contents  offer  nothing  extraordinary.  This 
at'empt  has  railed  ;  it  is  an  expedient  repudiated  at  the  present  day,  rationalisiic 
ciilicisni  only  having  recourse  to  it  in  cases  where  other  methods  are  manitesiiy  in- 
ofEeclual.  S(Co?id.  The  mythical  explanation,  according  to  which  the  accounis  of 
the  miiacles  would  be  owing  to  reminiscences  of  the  miraculous  stories  of  the  O.  T. — 
the  Messiah  could  not  do  less  tiian  the  prophets — or  would  be  either  the  product  of 
spontancKUS  creations  of  tlie  Chiistian  consciousness,  or  the  accidental  result  of  cer- 
tain words  or  parables  of  Jesus  that  weie  misimderstood  (the  resurrection  of  Lazarus, 
e.ff.,  the  result  of  the  passage  Luke  Hi  :  31  ;  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  atran.s- 
hilion  into  fact  of  the  parable,  l^uke  13  :  G-9).  But  the  sinrple,  plain,  historical  chiir- 
acter  of  our  Gospel  narratives,  so  free  frc<m  all  poetical  adornment  and  bombast,  de- 
fends them  against  this  suspicion.  Besides,  several  accounts  of  miracles  are  accom- 
panied by  words  of  Jesus,  which  in  such  a  case  would  lose  their  meaning,  but  which 
are  nevertheless  beyond  doubt  authentic.  For  example,  the  discourse,  Matt.  12  :  26 
et  seq.,  where  .Jesus  refutes  the  charge,  laid  against  Him  by  His  adversaries,  of  cast- 
ing out  devilsby  the  prince  of  the  devils,  would  have  no  sense  but  on  the  supposition, 
fully  conceded  by  thes^e  adversaries,  of  the  reality  of  His  cures  of  the  possessed.  His 
address  to  the  cities  of  Galilee,  Luke  10  :  12-15,  implies  the  notorious  and  undisputed 
reality  of  numerurrs  miracr;lou?.  facts  in  His  ministry  :  for  we  know  of  no  exegesis 
which  consents  to  give  iheterm  r^i^r'a'/zf/?  in  this  passage  the  purely  mor-al  meaning  which 
M.  Colani  proposes.*  T7iird.  The  relative  hy[>othesis,  aceordingto  which  these  facis 
must  he  ascribed  to  natural  laws  as  yet  luiknown.  This  was  the  explanation  of 
Schleiermacher  ;  in  part  als')  it  was  the  explanation  of  M.  Kenan  :  "  The  miraculous 
is  only  the  uutxplaiaed."     It  is  in  conflict  with  two  insurmountable  difficulties  :  1. 

*  See  on  this  sub.iect  the  fine  chapter  of  Holtzmann,  "Die  Svn'-pt.  Evanorlien  " 
g  30;  "Die  Synoptischen  Wrmderberichte  :"  and  my  lecture  on  the  "  Miracles  de 
Jesus,"  secorrd  edition,  p.  11  et  seq. 


CHAP.  Y.  :  1  ;  vi.  :  'I.  1G3 

If  certain  euros  may  be  explained  after  a  fasliiun,  we  may  be  perfectly  sure  that  no 
one  will  ever  discover  6  iiaUiru!  lasv  ea|ial)le  of  j)ii>dueiiig  a  nmllipliiialion  of  leaves 
and  of  cooked  fiyii,  c  resurrection  of  llic  dead,  and  above  all,  siieli  an  event  as  ihe 
resurreoii  in  of  Jo3Ui:  Uinisdf.  2.  We  must,  according  to  llus  i-xplauatiou,  allribnte 
to  Jesus  mi:acles  of  scienlific  kumvledge  quite  as  inexpheable  as  the  miracles  of 
power  whicli  are  now  in  (lueslion.  Fourth.  Tiie  psychological  ex(danation.  Alter 
havinj;  got  rid  of  the  miracles  wrought  on  external  nature  (the  multiplication  of  the 
loaves" all  1  the  stilling  of  the  storm) l)y  one  of  the  three  methods  indicated,  Keim  ad- 
mils  a  residuiun  of  extraordinary  and  indisputable  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  These 
are  the  cures  wrouglit  ui)ou  the  sick  and  Ihe  possessed.  Belore  him,  M.  Kenan  had 
spoken  of  tiie  iiill.i.'iicu  ixerted  on  suffering  and  nervous  people  by  the  contact  of  a 
person  of  linely  orgiuiizcd  nature  (inn;  j)erKoiine  exqiiise).  Keim  merely,  in  fact, 
amplilies  this  expression.  The  ouly  real  mirac^les  in  the  histoiy  of  Jesus — the  cures 
— are  to  be  asciibijd,  according  to  him,  to  moral  influence  (ethico-psychological,  t.  ii. 
p.  1()2).  Wo  reply  :  1.  That  the  miracles  wrought  on  nature,  whieh  are  set  aside  as 
mythical,  are  attested  in  exactly  the  same  manner  as  the  cures  which  are  admitted. 
2."  That  Jesus  wrought  these  cures  with  an  absolute  certainty  of  success  ("  Now,  in 
order  that  ye  may  Iciiow.  I  say  unto  thee  .  .  ."  "  1  will  ;  be  thou  clean."  "Be 
it  unto  thee  as  thou  wilt  "),  and  that  the  effect  produced  was  immediate.  These  two 
features  are  inconipalible  with  the  psychological  explanation.  3.  That  if  Jesus  had 
known  that  these  cures  did  not  proceed  fnmi  an  order  of  things  above  nature,  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  He  would  have  offered  them  as  God's  testimony  in  flis  favor,  and  as 
signs  of  His  Messianic  dignity.  Charlatanism,  however  sight,  is  incompatible  with 
the  moral  character  of  Jesus.     On  the  possessed,  see  pp.  150-7. 

Jewish  legends  themselves  bear  witness  to  the  reality  of  Jesus'  miracles.  "  The 
Son  of  Stada  (a  nickname  applied  to  Jesus  in  Ihe  Talmud)  brought  charms  from  Egypt 
in  an  incision  which  he  had  made  in  his  flesh."  This  is  the  accusation  of  the 
Talmud  against  Him.  Surely,  if  the  Jews  had  been  able  to  deny  His  miracles,  it 
would  have  been  a  simpler  thmg  to  do  than  to  explain  them  in  this  way.  Lastly, 
when  we  compare  the  miracles  of  the  Gos[)els  with  those  attributed  to  Him  in  the 
apocryphal  writings,  we  feel  what  a  wide  difference  there  is  between  tradition  and 
legend. 

SECOND  CYCLE. — CHAP.   5:1;  6  :  11. 

From  ihe  Call  of  the  First  Disciples  to  the  Choice  of  the  Twelte. 

Up  to  this  time  .Tesus  has  been  preaching,  accompanied  by  a  few  friends,  but  with- 
out forming  about  Him  a  circle  of  permanent  di«ciples.  As  His  work  grows.  He  feels 
it  necessary  to  give  it  a  more  definite  form.  The  time  has  arrived  when  He  deems  it 
wise  to  attach  to  Himself,  as  regular  disciples,  those  whom  the  Father  has  given  Him. 
This  new  phase  coincides  with  that  in  which  His  work  begins  to  come  into  conflict 
with  the  established  order  of  things. 

This  cycle  comprises  six  narratives  :  1.  The  call  of  the  first  four  disciples  (5  :  11)  ; 
2  and  3.  Two  cures  of  the  leper  and  the  paralytic  (5  :  12-14  and  15-20)  ;  4.  Tiie  call  of 
Levi,  with  the  circumstances  connected  with  it  (5  :  27-39)  ;  5  and  6.  Two  conflicts 
relating  to  the  Sabbath  (G  :  1-11). 

1.  The  Call  if  the  Dimples:  5  :  1-11. — The  companions  of  Jesus,  in  the  preced- 
ing scene,  have  not  yet  been  named  by  Luke  (they  besought  Him,  4  :  38  ;  she  min- 
istered unto  them  (4  :  39).  According  to  Mark  (1  :  29),  they  were  Peter,  Andrew, 
James,  and  John.  These  are  the  very  four  young  men  whom  we  find  in  this  nar- 
rative. They  had  lived  u[)  to  this  time  in  the  bosom  of  their  families,  and  continued 
their  old  occupations.  But  this  state  of  things  was  no  longer  suitable  to  the  part 
which  Jesus  designed  for  them.  They  were  to  treasure  up  all  His  instructions,  be 
the  constant  witnesses  of  His  works,  and  receive  from  Him  a  daily  moral  education. 


164  COMMEXTAlil    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

In  order  to  this  it  was  indispensable  that  tliey  should  be  continually  with  Him.  In 
culllDg  Ihem  to  leave  their  earthly  occupation,  and  assigning  them  in  its  place  one 
that  was  wholly  spiritual,  Jesus  founded,  properly  speaking,  the  Christian  ministry. 
For  this  is  precisely  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  simple  Christian  and  the 
minister,  that  the  former  realizes  the  life  of  faith  in  any  earthly  calling  ;  while  the 
latter,  excused  by  his  Master  from  any  particular  profession,  can  devote  himself  en- 
tirely to  the  spiritual  woik  with  which  he  is  iotrusted.  Such  is  the  new  position  to 
which  Jesus  raises  these  young  fishermen.  It  is  more  than  simple  faith,  but  less 
than  apostleship  ;  it  is  the  ministry,  the  general  foundation  on  which  will  be  erected 
the  apostolate. 

The  call  related  here  by  Luke  is  certainly  the  same  as  that  which  is  related,  in  a 
more  abridged  form,  by  Matthew  (4  :  18-22)  and  Mark  (1  :  lG-20).  For  can  any  one 
suppose,  with  Riggenbach,  that  Jesus  twice  addressed  the  same  persons  in  these 
terms,  "  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men,"  and  that  they  could  have  twice  left  all  in 
order  to  follow  Him  ?  If  the  miraculous  draught  of  tishes  is  omitted  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  it  is  because,  as  we  have  frequent  proof  in  the  former,  in  the  traditional  nar- 
ratives, the  whole  interest  was  centred  in  the  word  of  Jesus,  whii;h  was  the  soul  of 
every  incident.  Mark  has  given  completeness  to  these  narratives  wherever  he  could 
avail  himself  of  Peter's  accounts.  But  here  this  was  not  the  case,  because,  as  many 
facts  go  to  prove,  Peter  avoided  giving  prominence  to  himself  in  his  own  narrations. 

Vers.  1-3.*  The  General  Situation. — This  desgription  furnishes  a  perfect  frame  to 
the  scene  that  follows.  The  words,  kcu  uvtoS  .  .  .  He  was  also  standing  there, 
indicate  the  inconvenient  position  in  which  He  was  placed  by  the  crowd  collected  at 
this  spot.  Tlie  details  in  ver.  2  are  intended  to  explain  the  request  which  Jesus 
makes  to  the  fishermen.  The  night  fishing  was  at  an  end  (ver.  5).  And  they  had 
no  intention  of  beginning  another  by  daylight  ;  the  season  was  not  favorable.  More- 
over, they  had  washed  their  nets  {a-izi-K/.wav  is  the  true  reading  ;  the  imperf.  in  B.  D. 
is  a  correction),  and  their  boats  were  drawn  up  upon  the  strand  {toTijTa).  If  the 
fishermen  had  been  ready  to  fish,  Jesus  would  not  have  asked  them  to  render  a  service 
which  would  have  interfered  with  their  work.  It  is  true  that  Matthew  and  Mark 
represent  them  as  actually  engaged  in  casting  their  nets.  But  these  two  evangelists 
omit  the  miraculous  draught  altogether,  and  take  us  to  the  final  moment  when  Jesus 
says  to  them  :  "  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men."  Jesus  makes  a  pulpit  of  the  boat 
which  his  friends  had  just  left,  whence  He  casts  the  net  of  the  word  over  the  crowd 
which  covers  the  shore.  Then,  desiring  to  attach  henceforth  these  young  believers 
to  Himself  with  a  view  to  His  future  work,  He  determines  to  give  them  an  emblem 
they  will  never  forget  of  the  magnificent  s\iccess  that  will  attend  the  ministry  for  the 
love  of  whi(h  He  invites  them  to  forsake  all  ,  and  in  order  that  it  may  be  more  deeply 
graven  on  their  hearts,  He  takes  this  emblem  from  their  daily  calling. 

Vers.  4-lOa.f  The  Preparation. — In  the  imperative,  launch  out  (ver.  4),  Jesus 
speaks  solely  to  Peter,  as  director  of  the  embarkation  ;  the  order,  let  down,  is  ad- 
dressed to  all.  Peier,  the  head  of  the  present  fishing,  will  one  day  be  head  also  of 
the  mission.     Not  having  taken  anything  during  the  night,  the  most  favorable  time 

*  Ver.  1.  5i.  A.  B.  L.  X.,  km  ukoveiv  instead  of  tov  aaovEiv.  Ver.  2.  B.  D., 
En'Avvov,  instead  of  F-^lwav  or  aneTrAwav,  which  is  the  reading  of  .ill  the  others. 

•f  Ver.  6.  i^.  B.  L.  (^leprjaaero,  C.  <h£(ipT]To,  instead  of  (hrppriyvvTo  (or  (her.TjywTo), 
which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  and  the  rest.  Ver.  8.  i^.  omits  kv^u.  Ver.  9.  B.  D. 
X.,  (jv  instead  of  i?. 


CHAP.  V.  :  2-11.  165 

for  fishing,  they  had  given  up  the  idea  of  fishing  in  the  day.  Peter's  reply,  so  full  of 
docility,  indicates  faith  already  existing.  "I  sliould  not  thinli  of  lelliug  down  the 
net  ;  nevertheless  at  Thy  word  ..."  He  calls  Jesus  f7r«T7-<;T;?f,  properly  0«e7'.ieer, 
Master.  This  word  frequently  occurs  in  Luke  ;  it  is  more  general  tliiin  piiStii  or 
f5i(5(i(TKa?,oS  ;  it  refers  to  any  kind  of  oversight.  The  miraculous  draught  may  be  only 
a  miracle  of  knowledge  ;  Jesus  had  a  supernatural  knowledge  of  a  large  shoal  of  fish 
to  be  found  in  this  place.  There  are  numerous  instances  of  a  similar  abundance  of 
fish  ai)iH':iiing  in  an  unexpected  way.*  Jesus  may.  however,  have  wiought  by  His 
own  will  what  is  frequently  produced  by  pliysi(;al  circumstances.  The  imperf.,  tcds 
breaking,  ver.  G,  indicates  a  beginning  to  break,  or  at  least  a  danger  of  it.  The  ar- 
rivid  of  their  companions  prevented  this  accident.  The  term  nhoxoi.  denotes  merely 
participation  in  the  same  employment.  In  ]\Iatthew  and  Mark,  John  and  James  were 
mending  their  nets.  Luke  contains  nothing  opposed  to  this.  Meyer  thinks  Peter's 
astonishment  (ver.  8)  incomprehensible  after  all  the  miracles  he  had  already  seen. 
But  whenever  divine  power  leaves  the  region  of  the  abstract,  and  comes  before  our 
eyes  in  the  sphere  of  actual  facts,  does  it  not  appear  new  ?  Thus,  in  Peter's  case,  the 
emotion  produced  by  the  draught  of  fishes  efiiaces  for  the  time  every  other  impres- 
sion. 'E^E/de  qt'  kfiov.  Oo  out  [of  the  boat,  and  depait]  from,  me.  Peter  here  em- 
ploys the  more  religious  expression  Lord,  which  answers  to  his  actual  feeling.  The 
word  avrip,  a  man,  strongly  individualizes  the  idea  of  sinner-  If  the  reading  //  be 
preferred  to  wv  fAlex.),  we  must  take  the  word  aypa,  catch,  in  the  passive  sense. 
The  term  kolvuvoI,  associates  (ver.  10),  implies  more  than  /ueroxoi,  companions  (ver.  7)  ; 
it  denotes  association  in  a  common  undertaking. 

Vers.  106,  11. f  T/ie  Call. — In  ]\Iatthew  and  Mark  the  call  is  addressed  to  the  four 
disciples  present  ;  in  Luke,  in  express  terms,  to  Peter  only.  It  results,  doubtless, 
from  what  follows  that  the  call  of  the  other  disciples  was  implied  (oomp.  launch  out, 
ver.  4),  or  that  Jesus  extended  it  to  them,  perhaps  by  a  gesture.  But  how  can  criti- 
cism, with  this  passage  befoie  them,  which  brings  the  person  of  Peter  into  such  prom- 
inence, while  the  other  two  Syn.  do  not  in  any  way,  attribute  to  our  evangelist  an 
intention  to  underrate  this  apostle  V  % 

The  analytical  form  eari  l^uyptjv,  thouslialt  be  catching,  expresses  the  permanence 
of  this  mission  ;  and  the  words, //w?i  henceforth,  its  altogetlier  new  character.  Just 
as  the  fisherman,  bj-  his  superior  intelligence,  makes  the  fi«h  f.dl  into  his  snares,  so 
the  believer,  restored  to  God  and  to  himself,  may  seize  hold  of  the  natural  man,  and 
lift  it  up  with  himself  to  God. 

*  Tristram,  "  The  Natural  History  of  the  Bible,"  p.  285  :  "  The  thickness  of  the 
shoals  of  fish  in  the  lake  of  Gennesareth  is  almost  incredible  to  an}'  one  who  has  nut 
■witnessed  them.  They  often  cover  an  area  of  more  than  an  acre  ;  and  when  the  fish 
move  slovvl}'  forward  m  a  mass,  and  are  rising  out  of  the  water,  they  are  packed  so 
close  togetlier  that  it  appears  as  if  a  heavy  rain  was  beating  down  on  the  surface  of 
the  water."  A  similar  phenomenon  was  observed  some  years  ago,  and  even  in  the 
spring  of  this  year,  in  several  of  our  Swiss  lakes.  "  At  the  end  of  February,  in  the 
lakes  of  Constance  and  Wallentsadt,  the  tish  crowded  together  in  such  large  niimbers 
at  certain  places  by  the  bunks,  that  the  water  was  darkened  by  tliem.  At  a  single 
draught,  JJ.!  (piintals  of  dilTerent  kinds  of  fish  were  taken."— (5w /id,  Uth  ^larch,  187iJ.) 

f  Ver.  11.  !^.  B.  D.  L.,  Travra  instead  of  a-airrt. 

X  "Luke  imilerrates  Peter,"  says  ^l.  Burnouf,  following  M.  de  Bunsen,  jun., 
Itetiie  lies  Diux-Mondes,  1st  December,  180.3.  Is  it  not  time  to  have  done  with  this 
bitter  and  untruthful  criticism,  of  which  the  "  Anonymous  Saxon"  has  given  the 
most  notorious  example,  and  which  belongs  to  a  phase  of  science  now  passed  away? 


166  COMMENTAEY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

This  whole  scene  implies  cerlain  previous  relations  between  Jesus  and  these  young 
men  (^'er.  5),  whicli  iigrecs  wilh  Luke's  narrative  ;  for  in  the  latler  this  incident  is 
placed  after  the  healing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law,  when  the  newly  called  disciples 
were  present.  We  must  go  farther  hack  even  than  this  ;  for  how  could  Jesus  have 
entered  into  Peter's  house  on  the  Sabbath  day  (4  :  08),  unless  they  had  already  been 
intimately  acquainted?  John's  narrative  easily  explains  all  :  Jesus  bad  made  the  ac- 
quaintance of  Peter  and  his  friends  when  they  were  with  John  the  Baptist  (John  1). 
As  for  Matthew  and  Mark,  their  narrative  has  just  the  fragmentarj^  character  that  be- 
longs to  the  traditional  narrative.  The  facts  are  simply  put  into  juxtaposition.  Be- 
yond this,  each  writer  follows  his  own  bent  :  Matthew  is  eager  after  the  words  of 
Christ,  which  in  his  view  are  the  essential  thing  ;  Mark  dwells  somewhat  more  on  the 
circumstances  ;  Luke  enriches  the  traditional  narrative  by  the  addition  of  an  imi)or- 
tant  detail — the  unraculuus  fishing — obtained  from  private  sources  of  mformation. 
His  narrative  is  so  simple,  and  at  the  same  time  so  picturesque,  that  its  accuracy  is 
beyond  suspicion.  John  does  not  mention  this  incident,  because  it  was  already  sufli- 
ciently  known  tiirough  the  tradition  ;  but,  in  accordance  wilh  his  method,  he  places 
befoie  us  the  first  commencement  of  the  connection  which  teiminated  in  this  result. 
Holtzmann  thinks  that  Luke's  narrative  is  made  up  partly  from  that  of  Mark  and 
Matthew,  and  partly  from  the  account  of  the  miraculous  fishing  related  in  John  21. 
It  would  be  well  to  explain  how,  if  this  were  the  case,  the  thnce  repeated  reply  of 
Peter,  lliou  knottiest  tJuit  1  love  Thee,  could  have  been  changed  by  Luke  into  the  ex- 
clamation. Depart  from  me!  _Is  it  not  much  more  simple  to  admit  that,  when  Jesus 
desired  to  restore  Peter  to  his  apostleship,  after  the  deni^d,  He  began  by  placing  him 
in  a  similar  situation  to  that  in  which  he  was  when  first  called,  in  the  presence  of 
another  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  ;  and  that  it  was  by  awakening  in  him  the  fresh 
impressions  of  earlier  days  that  He  restored  to  him  his  ministry  ?  Besides,  in  John 
21,  the  words,  on  the  ot'lier  side  of  the  sJiip,  seem  to  allude  to  the  mission  to  the 
heathen. 

The  course  of  events  Iherefoi'e  was  this  :  Jesus,  after  having  attached  to  Himself 
in  Judtea  these  few  disciple-  of  John  the  Baptist,  took  them  back  with  Him  into 
Galilee  ;  and  as  He  wished  Himself  to  return  to  His  own  family  for  a  little  while 
Mohu  2  : 1-12  ;  Matt.  4  :  13),  He  sent  them  back  to  theirs,  where  they  resumed  their 
former  employments.  In  this  way  those  early  days  passed  away,  spent  in  Caper- 
naum and  the  neighborhood,  of  which  John  speaks  {ov  tvoVmS  r//iipai),  and  which 
Luke  describes  from  4  :  14.  But  when  the  time  came  for  Him  to  goto  Jerusalem  for 
the  feast  of  the  Passover  (John  2  :  13  et  seq.),  where  Jesus  determined  to  perform  the 
solemn  act  which  was  to  inaugurate  His  Messianic  ministiy  (John  2  :  13  c<  *'f(?-),  He 
thought  that  the  hour  had  come  to  attach  them  to  Him  altogether  ;  so,  separating 
Himself  finally  from  His  family  circle  and  early  calling,  He  required  the  same 
sacrifice  from  them.  For  this  they  were  sufficiently  prepared  by  all  their  previous 
experiences  ;  they  made  it  therefore  without  hesitation,  and  we  find  them  from  this 
time  constantlj''  with  Him,  both  in  the  narrative  of  John  (2  :  17,  4  : 2-8)  and  in  the 
Synoptics. 

2.  The  Lepers  :  vers.  12-14.*  In  Mark XI  ".  40),  as  in  Luke,  the  cure  of  the  lepers 
took  place  during  a  preaching  tour.  Matthew  connects  this  miracle  with  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  ;  it  is  as  He  comes  down  from  the  hill  that  Jesus  meets  and  heals  the 
leper  (8  : 1  6<  seq.).  This  latter  detad  is  so  precise  that  it  is  natural  to  give  Matthew 
the  preference  here,  rather  than  say,  with  Holtzmann,  that  Matthew  wanted  to  fill  up 
the  return  from  the  mountain  to  the  city  with  it. 

Leprosy  was  in  every  point  of  view  a  most  frightful  malady.  First.  In  its  phy- 
sical aspects  it  was  a  whitish  pustule,  eating  away  the  fle.sh,  attacking  member  after 
member,  and  at  last  eating  away  the  very  bones  ;  it  was  attended  with  burning  fever, 
sleeplessness,  and  nightmare,  without  scarcely  the  slightest  hope  of  cure.  Such 
were  its  physical  characteristics  ;  it  was  a  living  death.  Second.  In  the  social  point 
01  view,  in  consequence  of  the  excessively  contagious  nature  of  his  malady,  the  leper 

*  Ver.  13.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ei-uv  and  y^syuv  (A.lcx.). 


CHAP.  V.  :  12-14.  167 

was  st'imratcd  from  his  family,  and  from  intercourse  with  men,  and  had  no  other 
coiiipiiuy  than  that  of  others  as  unhappy  as  himself.  Lepers  ordinarily  hved  in 
bauds,  at  a  cerlaia  distance  from  human  habitations  (2  Kings  7:3;  Luke  17:12). 
Their  food  was  deposited  for  them  iu  convenient  phices.  They  went  with  their  head 
uncovered,  and  lliuir  chin  wrapped  up  ;  and  on  the  approach  of  any  persons  whom 
they  met,  they  had  to  announce  tliemselves  as  lepers.  Third.  In  the  religious  point 
of  view,  the  leper  was  Levilically  unclean,  and  consequently  excommunicate.  Ilis 
malady  was  considered  a  direct  chastisement  from  God.  In  the  very  rare  case  of  a 
cure,  he  was  only  restored  to  the  theocratic  community  on  an  ofheial  declaration  of 
the  priest,  and  after  offering  the  sacrifice  prescribed  by  the  law  (Lev.  13  and  14,  and 
the  tract  Negaim  in  the  Talmud). 

The  Greek  expression  is  :  And  behold,  a  man!  There  is  not  a  verb  even.  His 
approach  was  not  seen  ;  it  has  all  the  ttfcct  of  an  apparition.  This  dramatic  form 
reproduces  the  im[)ression  made  on  those  who  witnessed  the  scene  ;  in  fact,  it  was 
onlj'  by  a  kind  of  surprise,  and  as  it  were  bj'  steailh,  that  a  leper  could  have  suc- 
ceeded iu  approaching  so  near.  The  construction  of  the  12th  verse  {koX  tyeveTo 
.  .  .  KoX  .  .  .  Kal)  is  Hebraistic,  and  proves  an  Aramaean  document.  There 
is  nothing  like  it  in  the  other  Syn.  ;  the  eye-witness  discovers  himself  in  every 
feature  of  Luke's  narrative.  The  diseased  man  was /?;^^  of  leproxy — that  is  to  say, 
his  countenance  was  lividly  white,  as  is  the  case  wdien  the  malad>'  has  reached  an  ad- 
vanced stage.  The  unhappy  man  looks  for  Jesus  in  the  crowd,  und  having  ducovcrcd 
Jlim  (/'5ut')  he  rushes  toward  Him  ;  the  moment  he  lecognizes  Him.  he  is  at  His  feet. 
Luke  says,  fallinrj  on  his  face ;  JMark,  kneeling  down ;  Matthew,  he  irorahipp  d. 
"Would  not  these  variations  in  terms  I)e  puerile  if  this  were  a  case  of  copying,  or  of  a 
derivation  from  a  common  source  ?  The  dialogue  is  idenlical  in  the  three  narratives  ; 
it  was  expressed  in  the  tradition  in  a  fixed  form,  while  the  historical  details  were  re- 
produced with  greater  freedom.  All  three  evangelists  say  cleanse  instead  of  heal,  on 
account  of  the  notion  of  uucleanness  attached  to  this  malady.  In  the  words,  if  Thou 
wilt.  Thou  canst,  there  is  at  once  deep  anguish  and  great  faith.  Other  sick  persons 
had  been  cured— this  the  leper  knew— hence  his  faith  ;  but  he  was  probably 
the  first  m.an  atflicled  with  his  particular  malady  that  succeeded  in  reaching 
Jesus  and  entreating  His  aid— hence  his  anxietj'.  The  older  rationalism  used  to 
explain  this  request  iu  this  way  :  "Thou  canst,  as  Messiah,  pronounce  me  clean." 
According  to  this  explanation,  the  diseased  person,  already  in  the  way  of  being  cured 
naturally,  simply  asked  Jesus  to  verify  the  cure  and  pronounce  him  clean,  in  or-^or 
that  he  might  be  spared  a  costly  and  troublesome  journey  to  Jerusalem.  But  tor  the 
erni  Ka^plCeiv,  to  purify,  comp.  7  :  23.  IVIatt.  10  :  8.  where  the  sim[)ly  declarative  sense 
is  impossible  ;  and  as  to  the  context,  Strauss  has  already  shown  that  it  comports 
just  as  little  with  this  feeble  meaning.  After  the  words,  be  thou  clean  (pronouuced 
pure),  these,  and  he  was  cleansed  (pronounced  pure),  would  be  nothing  but  absurd 
tautology.  Maik,  who  takes  pleasure  in  portraying  the  feelings  of  Jesus,  expresses 
the  deep  compassion  with  which  He  was  moved  by  this  spectacle  {aTtlayxviaBeii). 
The  three  narratives  concur  in  one  detail,  which  must  have  deeply  impressed  those 
who  saw  it,  and  which,  for  this  reason,  was  indelibly  imi)rinted  on  the  tradition  :  Hi 
put  forth  His  hand,  and  touched  him.     Leprosy  was  so  contagious,*  that  this  cour- 

*  It  probably  was  regarded  as  contagious  iu  popnliir  apprel.ensinn,  which  would 
justify  the  remark  in  the  text ;  but  the  man  who  was  so  coiii()li  toly  covered  with  the 


iOS  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

ageous  act  excited  the  liveliest  emotion  in  the  crowd.  Throughout  the  -whole  course 
of  His  life,  Jesus  confronted  the  touch  of  our  impure  nature  iu  a  similar  mimuer. 
Mis  answer  is  identical  in  the  thiee  narialives  ;  but  ihe  result  is  variouhly  expressed. 
Matthew  taj's  :  his  lepi'osy  was  cleansed,  regarding  it  fromacercmunial  point  of  view. 
Luke  simply  says  ;  the  leiyrosy  departed  from  Jam,  looking  at  it  from  a  human  point 
of  view.  Mark  combines  the  two  forms.  This  is  one  of  the  passages  on  which  they 
rely  who  make  Mark  a  compiler  from  the  other  two  ;  but  if  Mark  was  anxious  to  ad- 
here so  slavishly  to  the  minutest  expressions  of  his  predecessors,  to  the  point  even  of  re- 
producing them  without  any  object,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  serious  and  important 
modifications  which  in  so  many  other  cases  he  introduced  into  their  narratives,  and 
the  considerable  omissions  which  he  is  contmually  making  of  the  substance  of  what 
they  relate?  The  fact  is,  that  there  were  two  sides  to  this  cure,  as  to  the  malady  it- 
self, the  physical  and  the  religious  ;  and  Mark  combiaes  them,  while  the  other  two 
appear  to  take  one  or  the  other. 

The  prohibition  which  Jesus  lays  on  the  leper  appears  in  Luke  5  :  14  in  the  form 
of  indirect  discourse  ;  but  in  relating  the  injunction  which  follows  it,  Luke  passes  to 
the  direct  form.  This  form  is  peculiar  to  his  narrative.  Luke  and  Matthew  omit  the 
threat  with  which  Jesus,  according  to  Mark,  accompanied  this  injunction  (iuiipi- 
fi7]aufievo<;).  What  was  the  intention  of  Jesus?  The  cure  having  been  public.  He 
could  not  prevent  the  report  of  it  from  being  spread  abroad.  This  is  true  ;  but  He 
wanted  to  do  all  in  His  jjower  to  diminish  its  fame,  and  not  give  a  useless  impetus  to 
the  popular  excitement  produced  by  the  report  of  His  miracles.  Comp.  Luke  8  :  56  ; 
Matt.  9  :  30,  13  :  16  ;  Mark  1  :  34,  3  :  12,  5  :  43,  7  :  36,  8  :  26.  All  tliese  passages  forbid 
our  seeking  a  particular  cause  for  the  prohibition  He  laj^s  on  the  leper  ;  such  as  a 
fear  that  the  priests,  having  had  notice  of  his  cure  before  his  reaching  iheni,  wouhl 
refuse  to  acknowledge  it  ;  or  that  they  would  pronounce  Jesus  unclean  for  having 
touched  him  ;  or  that  the  sick  man  would  lose  the  serious  impicssions  which  he  had 
received  ;  or  that  he  would  allow  himself  to  be  deterred  from  the  duty  of  offering  the 
sacrifice.  Jesus  said,  "  Show  thyself,"  because  the  person  is  here  the  convincing 
proof.  In  Luke  we  read,  accordinrj  to  Moses  ...  in  Matthew,  the  gift  wldch 
Moses  ...  in  IMark,  the  things  ichich  Moses  .  .  .  Most  puerile  changes,  if 
they  were  designed  !  What  is  the  testimony  contained  in  this  sacrifice,  and  to  whom 
is  it  addressed  ?  According  to  Bleek,  the  word  tJiem  would  refer  to  the  people,  who 
are  to  be  apprised  that  every  one  maj'^  henceforth  renew  his  foimer  relations  with  the 
lep;v^  But  is  not  the  term  testimony  too  weighty  for  this  meaning?  Gerlach  refers 
the  pronoun  t?ie?n  to  the  priests  :  in  order  that  thou,  by  thy  cure,  maj^cst  be  a  wit- 
ness to  (hem  of  my  almightiness  ;  but  according  to  the  text,  the  testimony  consists 
not  iu  the  cure  being  verified,  but  in  the  saciifice  being  offered.  The  word  them  docs 
indeed  refer  to  the  priests,  who  are  all  represented  by  the  one  wdio  will  verify  the 
cure  ;  but  the  testimony  respects  Jesus  Himself,  and  His  sentiments  in  regard  to  the 
law.  In  the  Sermor.  on  the  Mount  Jesus  repels  the  charge  already  preferred  against 
Him  of  despising  the  law  (]VIatt.  5  :  17  :  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  tl  e 
law").  It  is  to  His  respect,  therefore,  for  the  Mosaic  legislation,  that  this  offering 
will  testify  to  the  priests.  During  His  earthly  career  Jesus  never  dispensed  ILs 
people  from  the  obligation  to  obey  the  prescriptions  of  the  law  ;  and  it  is  an  error  to 

disease  that  it  could  find  no  further  range  was  clean,  according  to  Lev.  13  :  13.  See 
Smiili's  Diet,  of  Bible,  sub  voce. — Tu. 


CHAP.   V.  :  lo-2G.  IGU 

regard  Flini  ns  having,  mulcr  certain  circnnistances,  set  aside  (he  law  of  the  Sabbath 
as  far  as  He  Himself  was  eouccrned.  He  only  tiansgressed  the  arbitrary  enaetuients 
■with  which  Pharisaism  liad  surrounded  it.  We  see  by  these  remarkable  words  that 
Jesus  had  already  become  an  object  of  suspicion  and  serious  cliarges  at  Jerusalem. 
This  stale  of  things  is  exphiined  by  the  narrative  of  the  fouith  Gospel,  where,  from 
the  second  chapter,  we  see  Jesus  exposed  to  the  animosity  of  thedomiuanl  party,  and 
aci'ords  to  1  :  1.  He  is  even  obliged  to  leave  Jud;ea  in  order  that  their  unfaviHablo 
impressions  may  not  be  aggravated  before  the  lime.  In  chap.  5,  "wliich  describes  a 
fresh  visit  to  Jerusalem  (for  the  feast  of  Pnrim),  the  conflict  thus  prepared  breaks 
forth  with  violence,  and  Jesus  is  obliged  to  testify  solemnly  His  respect  for  this 
Moses,  who  will  l)c  the  Jews'  accuser,  and  not  His  (o  :  45-47).  This  is  just  tho  state 
of  things  with  Avhich  the  i)assage  we  are  explaining  agrees,  as  well  as  all  the  facts 
which  are  the  sequel  of  it.  Notwithstanding  apparent  discrepancies  between  the 
Syn.  and  John,  a  substantial  similarity  prevails  between  them,  which  proves  that  both 
forms  of  narrative  rest  on  a  basis  of  historic  reality. 

The  leper,  according  to  Mark,  did  not  obey  the  injunction  of  Jesus  ;  and  this  dis- 
obedience served  to  increase  that  concourse  of  sick  persons  which  Jesus  endeavored 
to  lessen. 

1 

This  cure  is  a  difficulty  for  Keim.  A  purely  moral  influence  may  calm  a  fever 
(4  :  39),  or  restore  a  frenzied  man  to  his  senses  (4  :  31  ct  scq.)  ,  but  it  cannot  purify 
vitiated  blood,  and  cleanse  a  body  covered  with  pustules.  Keim  here  resorts  to  what 
is  substantially  tlie  explanation  of  Paulus,  The  leper  already  cured  simply  desired  to 
be  pronounced  clean  by  authorized  lips,  that  he  might  not  have  to  go  to  Jerusalem.  It 
must  be  acknowledged,  on  this  view  of  the  matter,  that  the  three  narratives  (Matthew 
as  well  as  Luke  and  Mark,  wliatever  Keim  may  say  about  it)  are  complelely  falsified 
by  the  legend.  Then  how  came  it  to  enter  into  the  mind  of  this  man  to  subslilule 
Jesus  for  a  priest?  II  )w  could  Jesus  have  accepted  such  an  office?  Having  ac- 
cepted it,  why  should  He  have  sent  the  afflicted  man  to  Jerusalem  ?  Further,  for 
what  reason  did  He  impose  silence  upon  him.  and  enforce  it  wilh  threats  ?  And  what 
could  the  man  have  had  to  publish  abroad,  of  sufficient  importance  to  attract  the 
crowd  of  peopli;  described  3Lirk  1  :  40  ? 

Ilollzinanu  (p  432)  concludes,  f r jiu  the  words  i^eSnTiev  and  i^e'/Ouv,  literally.  He 
eaxt  him  out,  and  hncinrj  (jone  forth  (Mark  1  :  43,  4o),  that  according  to  Mark  this  cure 
took  place  in  a  house,  which  agrees  very  well  with  the  leper  being  prohibited  from 
making  it  known  ;  and  that  consequently  the  other  two  Syn.  are  in  error  in  making 
it  take  place  in  public — Luke  in  a  city,  Matthew  on  the  road  from  the  mountain  to 
Capernaum  (8.1).  He  draws  gicat  excgetical  inferences  from  this.  But  when  it  is 
said  in  Mark  (1  :  12)  that  the  Spirit  drove,  out  {iiKiin'/'Aei)  Jesus  into  the  wilderness,  does 
this  mean  nut  of  a  house  ?  And  as  to  the  verl)  e^yfixeoOai,  is  it  not  frequently  used  in 
a  broad  sense  :  to  gi  out  of  tlie  midst  of  that  in  which  one  happens  to  be  (here  :  the 
circle  fotmed  around  Jesus)  ?  Comp.  Mark  G  :  34  (Matt.  14  :  14),  0  :  12  ;  John  1  :  44, 
etc.  A  leper  would  hardly  have  been  able  to  make  his  way  into  a  house.  His  taking 
them  by  surprise  in  the  wa\'  he  did  could  scarcely  have  happened  except  in  the  open 
country  ;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  prohibition  of  Jesus  can  easily  be  explained,  tak- 
ing this  view  of  the  incident.  The  critical  consequences  of  Holtzmann,  Iherefure, 
have  no  substantial  basis. 

3.  T/ie  Paralytic :  vers.  15-26. — First.  A  general  description  of  the  state  of  the 
work,  vers.  15,  IG  ;  Second.  The  cure  of  the  paralytic,  vers.  17-2G. 

First.  Vers.  15  and  IG.*  While  seeking  to  calm  the  excitement  produced  by  His 
miracles,  Jesus  endeavored  also  to  preserve  His  energies  from  any  spiritual  deteriora- 

*  5*.  Vi.  C.  D.  L.  some  Muu.  It.  omit  f/r'  av-ov. 


170  COM.MKNTARV    OX    ST.    LUKE. 

lion  by  devoting  part  of  His  time  to  medilation  und  prayer.  As  Son  of  man,  He  had, 
in  common  with  us  all,  to  draw  from  Gjd  the  streuglli  He  needed  for  His  hours  of 
activity.  Such  touches  as  these  in  tlie  narrative  certainly  do  not  look  like  an  apotheosis 
of  Jesus,  and  they  constitute  a  striking  difference  between  the  evangelical  portrait 
and  the  legendary  caiicature.  Tliis  thoroughly  original  detail  sultices  also  to  prove 
the  independence  of  Luke's  sources  of  information.  After  this  general  description 
(the  seventh),  the  narrative  is  resumed  with  a  detached  and  special  incident,  given  as 
an  example  of  the  st.ite  of  things  described. 

Second.  Vers.  17-19.*  The  Arrival. — The  completely  Aram£ean  form  of  this  pre- 
face (the  nai  before  avroc,  the  form  kuI  Jjaav  .  .  .  ol  rjaav,  and  especially  the  ex- 
pression 7jv  e'li  TO  idaOai)  proves  that  Luke's  account  is  not  borrowed  from  either  of 
the  two  other  Sj^noptics.  This  was  one  of  those  solemn  hours  of  which  we  have 
another  instance  in  the  evening  at  Capernaum  (4  :  41,  42).  The  presence  of  the  Phari- 
sees and  scribes  from  Jerusalem  is  easily  explained,  if  the  conflict  i elated  John  5  had 
already  taken  place.  The  scribes  did  not  constitute  a  theological  or  political  party, 
like  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  They  weie  the  professional  lawyers.  They  were 
designedly  associated  with  the  Phaiisees  sent  to  Galilee  to  watch  Jesus  (ver.  21). 
The  narrative  in  the  first  Gospel  is  exliemely  concise.  Matthew  does  not  tell  the 
stor}'  ;  ho  is  intent  upon  his  object,  the  word  of  Jesus.  ]\Iaik  gives  the  same  details 
as  Luke,  but  without  the  two  narratives  presenting  one  single  teim  in  common. 
And  yet  they  worked  on  the  same  document,  or  one  on  the  text  of  tlie  other  !  The 
roof  of  the  house  could  be  reached  by  a  flight  of  steps  outside  built  against  the  "wall, 
or  by  a  ladder,  or  even  from  the  next  house,  for  the  houses  fiequently  communicated 
with  each  other  by  the  terraces.  Does  Luke's  expression,  (5m  tuv  Kspu/j.ui',  signify 
simply  bf/  the  ?'oo/"— that  is  to  say,  by  the  stairs  which  conducted  from  the  terrace  to 
the  lower  stories,  or  down  over  the  balustrade  which  surrounded  the  terrace  ;  or  Is 
it  just  C(^uivalent  to  Mark's  description:  "  thej'  uncovered  the  ceiling  of  the  place 
wheie  He  was,  and  having  made  an  opening,  let  down  the  pallet"?  This  teim, 
through  the  tiles,  would  be  strange,  if  it  was  nut  to  express  an  iilea  similar  to  that  of 
Mark.  Strauss  o'ojects  that  such  an  operation  as  that  of  raising  the  tiles  could  not 
have  been  effected  without  danger  to  tiiose  who  were  below  ;  and  he  concludes  from 
this  that  the  narrative  is  onl}'  a  legend.  But  iu  any  case,  a  legend  would  have  been 
invented  iu  conformity  with  the  mode  of  construction  then  adopted  and  known  to 
everybody.     Jesus  was  probably  seated  in  a  hall  immediately  beneath  the  terrace. f 

Vers.  20  and  21.:!:  The  Offence. — The  expression  their  faith,  in  Luke,  applies 
evidently  to  the  perseverance  of  the  sick  man  and  his  bearers,  notwiths^tauding  the 
obstacles  they  encountered  ;  it  is  the  same  iu  Mark.     In  Matthew,  Avho  has  not  meu- 

*  Ver.  17.  5*.  B.  L.  Z.,  avmv  instead  of  avTovi.  Ver.  19.  All  the  Mjj.  omit  dia 
before  TToiai. 

f  Delitszch  represents  the  fact  in  this  way  ("  Ein  Tag  in  Capernaum,"  pp.  40-40) : 
Two  bearers  ascend  the  roof  by  a  ladder,  and  by  means  of  cords  they  diaw  up  by  the 
same  way  the  sick  man  after  them,  assisted  by  the  other  two  bearers.  In  the  middle 
of  the  terrace  was  a  square  place  open  in  summer  to  give  liglit  and  air  to  the  licusc, 
but  closed  with  tiles  duiiug  the  rainy  season.  Having  opened  this  passage,  the 
bearers  let  down  the  sick  man  into  the  large  inner  court  immediately  below,  wlieie 
Jesus  was  teaching  near  the  cistern,  fixed  as  usual  in  this  court.  The  trap-slaiis 
which  lead  down  from  the  terrace  into  the  house  would  have  been  too  narrow  f'  r 
their  use,  and  would  not  have  taken  them  into  the  court,  but  into  the  apartiiieuis 
which  overlooked  it  from  all  sides. 

X  "Ver.  20  i^.  B.  L.  X.  omit  avTu  after  EiTrev. 


(•11 A 1'.   V.  :  K--.»4.  in 

tioucd  these  obstacles,  but  who  ncverlhcluss  emploj-s  the  same  terms,  and  seeing  tlidr 
faith,  this  expression  cau  only  refer  to  the  simple  fact  of  the  paralytic's  coming.  The 
identical  form  of  expression  indicates  a  common  source  ;  but  at  tiie  same  time,  the 
different  sense  put  upon  the  common  words  by  their  entirely  different  reference  to 
what  precedes  proves  that  this  source  was  not  written.  The  oral  tradition  had 
cvidenlly  so  stereotyped  this  form  of  expression  that  it  is  found  in  the  narrative  of 
^.latlhew,  though  separated  from  the  ciicumslanccs  to  wliich  it  is  applied  in  the  two 
otliers.  Jesus  could  not  repel  such  an  act  of  failh.  Seeing  the  persevering  con- 
fidence of  the  sick  man,  recognizing  in  him  one  of  those  whom  Ills  Fdther  dntirs  to 
Jliin  (John  G  :  44),  lie  receives  him  with  open  arms,  by  telling  him  that  he  is  for- 
given. The  three  salutations  differ  in  our  Syn.  :  Man  (Luke) ;  Jfi/  son  Qilark) ; 
Take  courage,  my  Son  (Alatthew).  Which  of  the  evangelists  was  it  that  changed  in  ttiis 
at  bilrary  and  aimless  manner  the  words  of  Jesus  as  recorded  in  his  predecessor?* 
'A(peu)VTai  is  an  Attic  form,  either  for  the  present  (Kpievrai,  or  rather  for  the  pcrf. 
apslf-at.  It  is  not  impossible  that,  by  speaking  in. this  waj',  Jesus  intended  to  throw 
down  Ihe  gauntlet  to  His  incjuisilors.  They  took  it  up.  The  scribes  are  put  before 
the  Pharisees  ;  they  were  the  experts.  A  blasphemy  !  How  wclcume  to  them  ! 
Noliiing  could  have  sounded  more  agreeably  in  their  eais.  "We  will  not  say,  in  re- 
gard to  this  accusation,  with  manj''  orthodox  interpreters,  that,  as  God,  Jesus  had  a 
right  to  pardon  ;  for  this  would  be  to  go  directly  contrary  to  the  employment  of  the 
title  8(7)1  of  man,  in  virtue  of  which  Jesus  attributes  to  Himself,  in  ver.  24,  this  power. 
But  may  not  God  delegate  His  gracious  authority  to  a  man  who  deserves  His  con- 
fidence, and  who  becomes,  for  the  great  work  of  salvation.  His  ambassador  on  earth  ? 
This  is  the  position  which  Jesus  takes.  The  only  question  is,  whether  this  pretension 
is  well  founded  ;  and  it  is  the  demcmstration  of  this  moral  fact,  already  contained  in 
His  previous  miracles,  that  He  proceeds  to  give  in  a  striking  form  to  His  adversaries. 
Vers.  22-24. f  The  Miracle. — The  miraculous  work  which  is  to  follow  is  for  a 
moment  deferred.  Jesus,  without  having  heard  the  words  of  those  about  Him,  under- 
stands their  murmurs.  His  mind  is,  as  it  were,  the  mirror  of  their  thoughts.  The 
form  of  His  rep!_v  is  so  striking  that  tlie  tradition  has  preserved  it  to  the  very  letter  ; 
hence  it  is  found  in  identical  terms  in  all  three  narratives.  The  jiropositiou,  tliat  ye 
wirt^  /t/itfw,  depends  on  the  following  command  :  I  say  to  thee  .  .  .  The  principal 
and  subordinate  clauses  having  been  separated  by  a  moment  of  solemn  silence,  the 
three  accounts  fill  up  this  interval  with  the  parenthesis  :  He  saith  to  the  paralytic. 
This  original  and  identical  form  must  necessarily  proceed  from  a  common  source, 
oral  or  written.  It  is  no  easier,  certainly,  to  pardon  than  to  heal  ;  but  it  is  much 
easier  to  convict  a  man  of  imposture  who  falsely  claims  the  power  to  heal,  than  him 
who  falsely  arrogates  authority  to  pardon.  There  is  a  sliglit  irony  in  the  way  in 
which  Jesus  gives  expression  to  this  thought.  "You  think  these  are  empty  words 
that  I  utter  when  I  say.  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.  See,  then,  whether  the  com- 
mand which  I  am  about  to  give  is  an  empty  word."  The  miracle  thus  announced 
acfpiires  the  value  of  an  imposing  demonstration.  It  will  be  seen  whether  Jesus  is 
not  really  what  He  claims  to  be,  the  Ambassador  of  God  on  earth  to  forgive  sins. 
Earth,  where  the  pardon  is  granted,  is  opposed  to  heaven,  where  He  dwells  from 
whom  it  proceeds. 

*  Our  author  means  by  this  and  many  similar  expressions,  to  disprove  the  idea  of 
the  Gospels  being  ct)pied  from  one  another. — J.  H. 

f  The  MSS.  vary  between  Trapa'Ae'/.vuevu  and  ■n-apa^.vriKu. 


172  COM.MEXTARY    OX    ST.  LL'KE, 

It  is  generally  acknowledged  at  the  present  day,  that  the  title  Son  of  man,  by 
which  Jesus  preferred  to  designate  Himself,  is  not  simply  an  allusion  to  the  sym- 
bolical name  in  Dan.  7,  but  that  it  sprang  spontaneously  from  the  depths  of  Jesus' 
own  consciousness.  Just  as,  in  His  title  of  Son  of  God,  Jesus  included  whatever  He 
was  conscious  of  being  for  God,  so  in  that  of  Son  of  man  He  comprehended  all  He 
felt  He  was  for  men.  The  term  So7i  of  man  is  geueiic,  and  denotes  each  representa- 
tive of  the  human  race  (Ps.  8:5;  Ezek.  37  :  3,  9,  11).  "With  tlieart.  {the  Son  of  man), 
this  expression  contains  the  notion  of  a  superiority  in  the  equality.  It  designates 
Jesus  not  simply  as  man,  but  as  the  normal  man,  the  perfect  representative  of  the 
race.  If  this  title  alludes  to  any  passage  of  the  O.  T.,  it  must  be  to  the  ancient 
prophecy,  "  The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head  "  (Gen.  3  :  15).* 
.There  is  a  tone  of  triumph  in  this  expression,  ver.  25  :  He  took  up  that  whereonhe  lay. 
The  astonishment  of  tlie  people,  ver.  26,  is  expressed  differently  in  the  three  narra- 
tives :  We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion  (Mark)  ;  They  glorified  God,  wJiicJi  had  given 
such  power  unto  iruen  (Matthew).  _  This  remarkable  expression,  to  men,,  is  doubtless 
connected  with  Son  of  man.  Whatever  is  given  to  the  normal  man,  is  in  Him  given 
to  all.  Matthew  did  not  certainly  add  this  expression  on  his  own  authoril3%  any 
more  than  the  others  arbitrarily  omitted  it.     Their  sources  were  different. 

n«/)d(5o^a,  strange  thin,gs,  in  Luke,  is  found  in  Josephus'  account  of  Jesus.  By 
the  term  to-day  the  multitude  allude  not  only  to  the  miiacle — they  had  seen  others  as 
astounding  on  previous  days — but  more  particularly  to  the  divine  prerogative  of  par- 
don, so  magnificently  demonstrated  by  this  miracle  with  which  Jesus  had  just  con- 
nected it.  The  different  expressions  by  which  the  crowd  give  utterance  to  their  sur- 
prise in  the  three  Syn.  might  really  have  been  on  the  lips  of  different  witnesses  of 
this  scene. 

Keim,  applying  here  the  method  indicated,  pp.  162-3,  thinks  that  the  paralysis 
was  overcome  by  the  moral  excitement  which  the  sick  man  vmderwent.  Examples  are 
given  of  impotent  persons  whose  power  of  movement  has  been  restored  by  a  mighty 
intc^rnal  shock.  Therefore  it  is  just  possible  that  the  physical  fact  might  be  explained 
in  this  way.  But  the  moral  fact,  the  absolute  assurance  of  Jesus,  the  challenge  im- 
plied in  this  address,  "  Iti  oider  that  ye  may  know,  .  .  .  arise  and  walk  !" — a 
speech  the  authenticity  of  wliich  is  so  completely  guaranteed  by  the  three  nairatives 
and  by  its  evident  originality — how  is  this  to  be  explained  from  Keiiu's  standpoint? 
Why,  Jesus,  in  announcing  so  positively  a  success  so  problematical,  would  have  laid 
Himself  open  to  be  palpably  contradicted  by  the  fact  !  At  the  commencement  of  His 
ministry  He  would  have  based  His  title  to  l)e  the  Son  of  man,  His  authority  to  for- 
give sins.  His  mission  as  the  Saviour,  His  entire  spiritual  work,  on  the  needle's  point 
of  this  hazardous  experiment  !  If  this  were  the  case,  instead  of  a  divine  demonstra- 
tion (and  this  is  lhe,meaning  which  Jesus  attaches  to  the  miracle),  there  would  be 
nothing  more  in  the  fact  than  a  fortunate  coincidence. 

4.  Tlie  Call  of  Levi :  vers.  27-39.  —This  section  relates  :  First.  The  call  of  Levi ; 
Second.  The  feast  which  followed,  with  the  discourse  connected  with  it  ;  Third.  A 
double  lesson  arising  out  of  a  question  about  fasting. 

*  M.  Gess,  in  his  tine  work,  "  Christi  Zeugniss  von  seiner  Person  und  seinera 
Werk,"  1870,  understands  by  the  Sort  of  man,  He  who  represents  the  divine  majesty 
in  a  human  form.  The  idea  in  itself  is  true  ;  the  normal  man  is  called  to  share  in  the 
divine  estate,  and  to  become  the  supreme  manifestation  of  God.  But  the  notion  of 
divine  majesty  does  not  belong  to  the  term  Son  of  man.  It  is  contained  in  the  term 
Son  of  God.  The  two  titles  are  in  antithetical  connection,  and  for  this  reason  they 
complete  each  other. 


(-11 A  p.  V.  :  27,  ;28.  IT.-J 

Firxt.  Vers.  27  and  28,  *  The  Call. — This  fact  occupies  an  Important  place  in  the 
development  of  llie  wcilc  of  Jesu«,  not  only  as  (he  c()iui)lenient.  of  the  cull  of  the  fust 
disciples  (ver.  1  et  neq),  hut  especially  as  a  continuation  of  the  conflict  already  enter- 
ed into  with  the  old  order  of  Ihings. 

Tlie  publicans  of  the  Gospels  are  ordinarily  regarded  as  Jewish  sub-collectors  in  the 
service  of  Ilouic  knights,  to  whom  the  tolls  of  Palestine  had  been  let  out  at  Rome. 
"Wieselcr,  in  his  recent  work.f  corrects  this  view.  He  proves,  by  an  edict  of  Caesar, 
quoted  in  Josephus  (''  Antiq."  xiv.  10.  5),  that  the  tolls  in  Judaea  were  remitted  direct 
to  the  Jewish  or  heathen  collectors,  without  passing  through  the  hands  of  the  Roman 
financiers.  The  publicans,  especially  such  as,  like  Matthew,  were  of  Jewish  origin, 
were  hated  anil  despised  by  their  fellow-countrymen  more  even  than  the  heathen 
themselves.  They  were  e.vcommunicated,  and  deprived  of  the  right  of  tendering  an 
oath  before  the  Jewish  authorities.  Their  conduct,  which  was  too  often  marked  by 
extortion  and  fraud,  generally  justified  the  opprobrium  which  public  opinion  cast 
upon  them.  Capiirnaum  was  on  the  road  leading  from  Damascus  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean, which  terminated  at  Ptolemais  (St.  Jean  d'Acre).  It  was  the  commercial 
l»ighway  from  the  interior  of  Asia.  In  this  city,  therefore,  there  must  have  been  a 
tax-of!lcc  of  considerable  importance.  This  office  was  probably  situated  outside  the 
oil)',  and  near  the  sea.  This  explains  the  expression,  He  went  out  (Luke)  ;  lie  went 
forth  in  order  to  go  to  the  sea-side  (Mark).  In  the  three  Syu.  this  call  immediately 
follows  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (ilatt.  9:9;  Mark  2  -.IS  et  seq.). 

Jesus  must  have  had  some  very  important  reason  for  calling  a  man  from  the  class 
of  the  publicans  to  join  the  circle  of  His  disciples  ;  for  b^'  this  step  He  set  Himself 
at  open  variance  with  the  theocratic  notions  of  decorum.  Was  it  His  deliiierale  in- 
tention to  throw  down  the  gauntlet  to  the  numerous  Pharisees  who  had  come  from  a 
distance  to  watch  Ilim,  and  to  show  them  how  completely  He  set  Himself  above  their 
judgment?  Or  was  it  simply  convenient  to  have  among  His  disciples  a  man  accus- 
tomed to  the  use  of  the  pen  ?  This  is  quite  possible  ;  but  there  is  something  so  abrupt, 
so  spontaneous,  and  so  strange  in  this  call  that  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  Jesus 
spoke  to  him  in  obedience  to  a  direct  impulse  from  on  high.  The  higher  nature  of 
the  call  appears  also  in  the  decision  and  promptness  with  which  it  was  accepted. 
Between  Jesus  and  this  man  there  must  have  been,  as  it  were,  a  flash  of  divine  sym- 
pathy. The  relation  between  Jesus  and  His  first  apostles  was  formed  in  this  way 
(John  1).  The  name  Levi  not  otrcurring  in  any  of  the  lists  of  apostles — it  is  impos- 
sible to  identify  it  with  Lebba;us,  which  has  a  different  meaning  and  etymology — it 
might  be  thought  that  this  Levi  never  belonged  to  the  numl)er  of  the  Twelve.  But  in 
this  case  why  should  his  call  be  so  particularly  related  ?  Then  the  expression,  having 
left  all,  Ice  followed  Ilim  (ver.  28),  forbids  our  thinking  that  Levi  ever  resumed  his 
profession  as  a  toll-collector,  and  puts  hira  in  the  same  rank  as  the  four  older  dis- 
ciples (ver.  11).  We  must  therefore  look  for  him  among  the  apostles.  In  the  cata- 
logue of  the  first  Gospel  (10  :  3),  the  Apostle  Matthew  is  called  the  publican  ;  and  in 
the  same  Gospel  (9  :  9)  the  call  of  Matthew  the  publican  is  related,  with  details 
identical  with  those  of  our  narrative.  Must  we  admit  two  different  but  similar  in- 
cidents? This  was  the  supposition  of  the  Gnostic  Ileracleon  and  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria.     Sieffert,  Ewald,  and  Keim  prefer  to  admit  that  our  first  Gospel  applies 

*  Ver.  28.  Th  cmss.  vary  between  KaTa?uTruv  and  Kara/.etnuv,  as  well  as  betweeu 
OTravTu  and  Travra,  ^KOAovOei  and  Tjcu/.ovOTjnev. 

f  "  Beitrage  zur  richtigen  Wiirdigung  der  Evangelien,"  p.  78. 


1T4  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.  LUKE. 

by  mistsike  to  the  apostle  and  older  publiciia  Matthew,  the  calling  of  anolher  less 
known  publican,  who  should  be  called  Levi  (Mark  and  Luke).  This  opinion  naturally 
implies  that  the  first  Gospel  is  unauthentic.  But  is  it  not  much  simpler  to  suppose 
that  the  former  name  of  this  man  was  Levi,  and  that  Jesus,  perceiving  the  direct 
hand  of  God  in  this  event,  gave  him  the  surname  of  Matthew,  gift  of  God,  just  as 
He  gave  Simon,  at  His  first  meeting  with  him,  the  surname  of  Peter  ?  *  This  name, 
w^hich  Matthew  habitually  bore  in  the  Church,  was  naturally  that  under  which  he 
figured  afterward  in  the  catalogues  of  the  apostles.f  Were  Luke  and  Mark  unaware 
tliat  the  apostle  so  named  was  the  fjublican  whom  they  had  designated  by  the  name  of 
Levi  ?  Or  have  they  neglected  to  mention  this  identity  in  their  lists  of  the  apostles, 
because  they  have  given  these  just  as  they  found  them  in  their  documents  ?  We  do 
not  know.  We  are  continually  struck  by  seeing  how  the  evangelical  tradition  has 
left  in  the  shade  the  secondary  personages  of  this  great  drama,  iu  order  to  bestow 
exclusive  attention  on  the  principal  actor.  'Wedaaro  does  not  signify  merely  He  saw, 
but  He  fixed  His  eyes  uiwn  him.  This  was  the  moment  when  something  peculiar 
and  inexplicable  took  place  between  Jesus  and  the  publican.  The  expression 
KuOiifiEvov  Inl  TO  tea6v,ov  cannot  signify  seated  in  the  office  ;  ertoreirtj  TeAwt'^a)  would 
be  necessar3^  As  the  accusative  after  knl,  the  word  toll  might  mean,  seated  at  his 
work  of  toll-collecting  ;  but  this  sense  of  te^uviov  is  unexampled.  Might  not  the 
prep,  f  TTf  have  the  sense  here  in  which  it  is  sometimes  employed  in  the  classics— in 
Herodotus,  for  example,  when  he  says  of  Arist ides  that  he  kept  eTvl  to  awiSpiov  iu 
front  of  the  place  where  the  chiefs  were  assembled  (8  :  79)  ?  Levi  must  have  been 
seated  iu  front  of  his  office,  observing  what  was  passing.  How,  indeed,  if  he  had 
been  seated  in  the  ouice,  could  his  glance  have  met  that  of  Jesus  ?  Without  even 
re-entering,  he  follows  Him,  forsaking  all. 

Second.  Vers.  29-32. t  The  -Fms^.— According  to  Luke,  the  repast  was  spread  in 
the  house  of  Levi  ;  the  new  disciple  seeks  to  bring  his  old  friends  and  Jesus  together. 
It  is  his  first  missionary  efi'ort.  Meyer  sees  a  contradiction  to  Matthew  here.  Mat- 
thew sa^s,  "  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  house" — an  expression  which,  in  his  opinion, 
can  only  mean  the  dwelling  of  Jesus.  He  decides  in  favor  of  Matthew's  narrative. 
But  (1)  how  came  the  crowd  of  publicans  and  people  of  ill-fame  at  meat  all  at  once 
in  tlie  house  of  Jesus?  (2)  Where  is  there  ever  any  mention  of  the  house  of  Jesus  f 
(3)  Tlve  repetition  of  Jesus'  name  at  the  end  of  the  verse  (ver.  10  in  Matthew)  ex- 
cludes the  idea  that  the  complement  imderstood  of  tJie  house  is  Jesus.  As  to  Mark, 
the  pron.  avrov,  Aw- house,  refers  to  Levi  ;  this  is  proved  (1)  by  the  opposition  of  uvtov 
to  the  preceding  avTi^v,  und  (2)  hy  the  repetition  of  the  name  'Irjoov  in  the  following 
phrase.  §  The  expression  in  ihe  house,  in  Matthew,  denotes  theiefore  the  house, 
wherever  it  was,  in  which  the  meal  took  place,  iu  opposition  to  the  outside,  where 
the  call,  with  the  preaching  that  followed  it,  occurred.     As  usual,  Matthew  passes 

*  Comp.  the  MaTfJalov  ?.£yofi£vov,  Matt.  9  :  9,  with  Hjxuv  6  leyofievog  Jlerpoc,  10  :  2. 
—John  1  :43. 

f  In  the  opinion  of  Gesenius,  the  name  Matthias  is  a  contraction  of  the  Hebrew 
Mattathias,  gift  of  God,  hut  the  opinion  is  not  universally  accepted.  The  conclusion, 
however,  of  our  author  is  generally  received. — J.  H. 

X  Part  of  the  mss.  put  oi  ^apiaatoi.  before  m  -ypapfjaTEiS  avruv  ;  T.  R.,  with  the 
others,  oi  ypn/uu.  nvTuv  before  oi  ^apia.  Avtov  is  omitted  by  i^.  D.  F.  X.  some  Man. 
If'W.  ;  T.  R.  omits  T(ov,  with  S.  V.  n.  only. 

_  §  I  am  happy  to  find  myself  in  accord  liere  with  Klostermaiin  in  his  fine  and  con- 
scientious study  of  the  second  Gospel.     ("  Das  Marcus-Evangelium,"  pp.  43,  44.) 


ciiAi'.  Y.  :  -.'O-;;,").  ITS 

rapidly  over  the  cxteniiil  circiiinstaiiCL's  of  the  narnitivc  ;  it.  is  the  word  of  Jesus  in 
which  he  is  iiiteiesled.  The  rupiist,  doubtless,  toolc  i)lace  on  the  ground  floor,  and 
the  apartment  or  gallery  in  which  the  table  was  spread  could  easily  be  readied  from 
Die  street.  While  Jesus  was  surrounded  by  His  new  friends.  His  adversaries  at- 
tacked His  disciples.  The  T.  K.  places  their  scribes  before  the  Pharixees.  In  this 
case  they  would  be  the  scribes  of  the  place,  or  those  of  (he  nation.  Neither  mean- 
ing is  very  natural  ;  the  other  readuig,  therefore,  must  be  preferred  :  the  Fhuriaecs 
and  (heir  ncribcs,  the  defenders  of  i>(rict  observance,  and  the  learned  men  sent  with 
them  from  Jerusalem  as  experts  (vers.  17-21).  The  Sinait.  and  some  others  Lave 
omitted  uvtuv,  doubtless  on  account  of  the  diflicully  and  apparent  uselessness  of  this 
pronoun. 

Eating  togctlier  is,  in  the  East,  as  with  us,  the  sign  of  very  close  intimacy.  Jesus, 
therefore,  went  beyond  all  the  limits  of  Jewish  decorum  in  accepting  the  hospitality 
of  .Matthew's  house,  and  in  such  company.  His  justification  is  pailly  serious  and 
partly  ironical.  He  seems  to  concede  to  the  Pharisees  that  they  are  perfectly  well, 
and  concludes  from  this  that  for  them  He,  the  phj'siciun,  is  useless  ,  so  far  the 
irony.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that,  speaking  ritually,  the  Pharisees  were 
right  according  to  the  Levitical  law,  and  that  being  so,  they  would  enjoy  the  means 
of  grace  offered  by  the  old  covenant,  of  which  those  who  have  broken  with  the 
theocratic  forms  are  deprived,  hi  this  sense  the  latter  are  really  in  a  more  serious 
condition  than  the  Phiuisees,  and  more  urgently  need  that  some  one  sh'tuld  interest 
liirasclf  in  their  salvation  ;  (his  is  the  serious  side  of  the  answer,  This  word  is  like 
a  two-edged  sword  :  first  of  all,  it  justifies  Jesus  from  His  adversaries'  point  of  view, 
and  by  an  argument  ad  homincm ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  calculated  to  excite 
serious  doubts  in  their  minds  as  to  whether  this  point  of  view  be  altogether  just,  and 
to  give  them  a  glimpse  of  another,  according  to  which  the  difference  that  separates 
them  from  the  publicans  has  not  all  the  worth  which  they  attributed  to  it.  (see  on 
15  : 1-T).  The  words  to  repentance  are  wanting  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  according  to 
the  best  authorities  ;  the  words  understood  in  this  case  are  :  to  the  kingdom  of  God» 
to  salvation.  In  Luke,  where  these  words  are  authentic,  they  continue  the  irony 
which  forms  the  substance  of  this  answer  :  come  to  call  to  repentance  just  persons! 
It  is  for  the  Pharisees  to  ask  themselves,  after  this,  whether,  because  they  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  temple,  the}'  satisfy  the  demands  of  God.  The  discussion  here 
takes  a  new  turn  ;  it  as,sumes  the  character  of  a  conversation  on  the  use  of  fasting  in 
the  old  and  new  order  of  things. 

Third.  Vers.  3;5-;>9.  Instruction  concerning  Fasting. 

Vers  3;3-li.5.*  In  Luke  they  are  the  same  parties,  particularly  the  scribes,  who 
contiune  the  conversation,  and  who  allege,  in  favor  of  the  regular  practice  of 
fasting,  the  example  of  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees.  The  scribes  ex- 
press themselves  in  this  manner,  because  they  themselves,  as  scilbes,  belong  to  no 
party  whatever.  In  iMatthew  it  is  the  disciples  of  John  who  appear  aC  at  once  in  the 
midst  of  this  scene,  and  interrogate  Jesus  in  their  ovvu  name  and  in  that  of  the 
Pharisees.  In  ^Maik  it  is  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  united  who  put 
the  question.     This  dilTerence  might  easily  find  its  way  into  the  oral  tradition,  bnt  it 

*  Ver.  33.  »»  (?)  B.  L.  X.  omit  ^inTt.     Ver.  34.  i«*  D.  ItP'-'W"",  ^^  t^wavrat  oi  vtoc 
.     VTjaTEvaaL    (,)r   vT/rjvEVfii)   instead   of  /ir}    (hvanOe    rovi    viovi     .     .     .      noirjaai 
vrjcTsvam  (or  vr/nTEveir).     Ver.  3.5.  ii.  C.  F.  L.  M.  some  Mnn.   Syr.  Itpi^'i"*,  omit  kcu 
before  orav.     The  same  (with  the  exception  of  C.  L.)  and  A.  place  it  before  tote. 


ITG  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

is  iuexp'.icahle  on  any  of  the  hypotheses  which  deduce  the  three  texts  from  one  and 
the  same  written  source,  or  one  of  them  from  another.  Mark  says  literally  .  the 
dincipks  of  J  aim  and  the  Pharisees  xcere  fasting ;  and  we  may  uuflerstaud  that  day. 
Devout  persons  in  Israel  fasted,  in  fact,  twice  a  week  (Luke  18  :  12),  on  Mondays  and 
Fridays,  the  days  on  which  it  was  said  that  Moses  went  up  Sinai  (see  Meyer  on  Matt. 
6  :  16)  ;  this  particular  day  may  have  been  one  or  other  of  these  two  days.  But  we 
may  also  explain  it  :  fasted  hahitually.  They  were  fasting  persons,  addicted  to  relig- 
ious observances  in  which  fasting  held  an  important  place.  It  is  not  easy  to  decide 
between  these  two  senses  :  with  the  first,  there  seems  less  reason  for  the  question  ; 
with  the  second,  it  conveys  a  much  more  serious  charge  against  Jesus,  since  it  refers 
to  His  habitual  conduct  ;  comp.  7  ;  34,  "  Ye  say.  He  is  a  glutton  and  a  winebibber 
(an  eater  and  a  drinker)."  The  word  Jjar/,  omitted  by  the  Alex.,  appears  to  have 
been  taken  from  Matthew  and  Mark. 

Whether  the  disciples  of  John  were  present  or  not,  it  is  to  their  mode  of  religious 
reformation  that  our  Lord's  answer  more  especially  applies.  As  they  do  not  appear 
to  have  clierished  very  kindly  feelings  toward  Jesus  (John  3  :  25,  26),  it  is  very  pos- 
sible that  they  were  united  on  this  occasion  with  His  avowed  adversaries  (Matthew). 
Jesus  compares  the  days  of  His  presence  on  the  earth  to  a  nuptial  feast.  The  Old 
Testament  had  represented  the  Messianic  coming  of  Jehovah  by  this  figure.  If 
Joliu  the  Baptist  had  already  uttered  the  words'reported  by  John  (3  :  29) ;  '  He  that 
hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom  ;  but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which  standeth 
and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  (he  bridegroom's  voice  :  this  my  joy 
therefore  is  fulfilled  "—what  appropriateness  there  was  in  this  figure  by  which  He 
replied  to  His  disciples  !  Perhaps  the  Pharisees  authorized  a  departure  from  the  rule 
respecting  tasting  during  the  nuptial  weeks.  In  this  case  Jesus'  reply  would  become 
more  striking  still.  Nv/icpuv  signifies  the  nuptial  chamber,  and  not  the  bridegroom 
{vvfifioi),  as  Martin,  Ostervald,  and  Crampon  translate.  The  true  Greek  term  to  in- 
dicate the  nuptial  friend  would  have  been  TTapavvjKpini  ;  John  says  :  ^/Ao?  tov  wfopiov. 
The  expression  of  the  Syn.,  son  of  the  nuptial  chamber,  is  a  Hebraism  (comp.  son  of 
the  kingdom,  of  wisdom,  of  perdition,  etc.).  The  received  reading,  "  Can  ^ou  make 
the  marriage  friends  fast?"  (notwithstanding  the  joy  with  which  their  hearts  are 
full),  is  preferable  to  that  of  the  Sinait.  and  of  the  Graeco-LatiaCodd.,  "  Can  they 
fast?"  which  is  less  forcible,  and  which  is  taken  from  Matthew  and  Mark.  In  the 
midst  of  this  feast  of  publicans  the  heart  of  Jesus  is  overflowing  with  joy  ;  it  is  one  of 
the  hours  when  His  earthly  life  seems  to  His  feeling  like  a  marriage  day.  But  sud- 
denly His  countenance  becomes  overcast  ;  the  shadow  of  a  painful  vision  passes 
across  His  brow  :  TJie  days  will  come  ,  .  .  said  He  in  a  solemn  tone.  At  the 
close  of  this  nuptial  week  the  bridegroom  Himself  will  be  suddenly  smitten  and  cut 
off  ;  then  will  come  the  time  of  fasting  for  those  who  to-day  are  rejoicing  ;  there  will 
be  no  necessity  to  enjoin  it.  In  this  striking  and  poetic  answer  Jesus  evidently  an- 
nounces His  violent  death.  The  passive  aor.  cannot,  as  Bleek  admits,  be  explained 
otherwise.  This  verb  and  tense  indicate  a  stroke  of  violence,  by  which  the  subject 
of  the  verb  will  lie  smitten  (comp.  1  Cor.  5  :  2).  This  saying  is  parallel  to  the  words 
found  in  John  2  :  10,  '■  Destroy  this  temple  ;"  and  3  :  14,  "  As  i\Ioses  lifted  up  the 
serpent,  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up."  The  fasting  which  Jesus  here  op- 
poses to  the  prescribed  fasting  practised  in  Israel  is  neither  a  state  of  purely  inward 
grief,  a  moral  fast,  in  moments  of  spiritual  depression,  nor,  as  Keander  thought,  the 
life  of  privation  and  sacrifice  to  which  the  apostles  would  inevitably  be  exposed  after 


(11 A 1'.   V.  :  ;3:)-3H.  177 

the  (lop:irtnr(>  of  tliL-ir  Miistor  ;  it  is  indeed,  according  to  the  context,  fasting  in  the 
proper  se.ise  of  the  lerm.  Fastiii!,^  has  always  been  practised  in  the  Church  at  cerlain 
soK-mn  seasons,  but  it  is  not  a  rile  imposed  on  it  from  without,  but  tlie  expiessiou  of 
a  sentiment  of  real  grief.  It  proceeds  from  the  sorrow  which  tlie  Church  feels  in 
the  absence  of  its  Head,  and  is  designed  to  lend  intensity  to  its  prayers,  and  to 
insure  with  i^reater  certainly  that  assistance  of  Jesus  which  alone  can  supply  the 
place  of  His  visible  presence  (comp.  .Mark  9  :  29  (?)  ;  Acts  12  :  2,  3  ;  U  :  23).  This  re- 
markable saying  was  preserved  wiih  literal  exactness  in  the  tradition  ;  accordingly 
we  liud  it  in  identical  words  in  the  three  Syn.  It  proves,  first,  that  from  the  earliest 
I)eriod  of  His  ministry  Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the  Messiah  ;  next,  that  He 
identified  His  coming  with  that  of  Jehovah,  the  husband  of  Israel  and  of  mankind 
(Hos.  3  :  19)  ;  *  lastly,  that  at  that  time  He  already  foresaw  and  announced  His  vio 
lent  death.  It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  oppose,  on  these  three  points,  the  fourth 
Gospel  to  the  other  three. 

Vers.  36-  39.  Here  we  have  the  second  part  of  the  conversation.  The  expression 
eleye  (5?  Kai,  and  He  mid  also,  indicates  its  range.  This  expression,  vrhich  occurs  so 
frequently  in  Luke,  als\'ays  indicates  the  point  at  which  Jesus,  after  having  treated 
of  the  particular  subject  before  Him,  rises  to  a  more  general  view  which  commands 
the  whole  question.  Thus,  from  this  moment  He  makes  the  particular  difference 
respecting  fasting  subordinate  to  the  general  opposition  between  the  old  and  new 
order  of  things— an  idea  Avhich  carries  Him  back  to  the  occasion  of  the  scene,  the 
call  of  a  publican. 

Ver.  30. t  First  Parable. — The  T.  R.  saj^s  :  "  Nomanputteth  a  pieceof  new  cloth 
unto  an  old  garment."  Tlie  Alex.  var.  has  this  :  "  No  man,  rending  a  piece  from 
a  new  garment,  putteth  it  to  an  old  garment."  In  ^latthew  and  Maik  the  new  i)icce 
is  taken  from  any  piece  of  cloth  ;  in  Liike,  according  to  two  readings,  it  is  cut  oui  of 
a  whole  gaimeut  ;  the  Alex,  reading  only  puts  this  in  a  somewhat  stronger  form. 
The  verb  o,v\"f',  lends  (Alex.  oxi'^Et,  will  rend),  in  the  secimd  proposition  might  have 
the  intransitive  sense:  "Otherwise  the  new  [piece]  maketh  a  rent  [in  the  old]," 
which  would  come  to  the  same  meaning  as  the  passage  has  in  Matthew  and  Mark  : 
"  The  new  piece  taketh  away  a  part  of  the  old,  and  the  rent  is  made  worse.  But  in 
Luke  the  context  requires  the  active  sense  :  "  Otherwise  it  [the  piece  used  to  patch 
with]  rendeth  the  new  [garment]."  This  is  the  only  sense  admissible  in  the  Alex, 
reading,  after  the  partic.  ax'ioai,  rending,  in  the  preceding  proposition.  The  received 
reading  equally  requires  it:  for,  Firi^t.  The  second  inconvenience  indicated,  "the 
new  agreeth  not  with  the  old."  would  be  too  slight  to  be  placed  after  that  of  the 
enlargement  of  the  rent.  Second.  The  evident  correlation  between  the  two  Kai, 
loth.  .  .  and  .  .  .  contains  the  following  idea :  the  two  garments, 
both  the  new  and  the  old.  are  spoiled  together  ;  the  new,  because  it  has  beea 
rent  to  patch  the  old ;  the  old,  because  it  is  disfigured  by  a  piece  of  different 
cloth.  Certainly  it  would  still  be  possible  to  refer  the  expression,  not  agree, 
not  to  the  incongruity  in  appearance  of  the  two  cloths,  but  to  the  stronger  and 
more  resisting  quality  of  the  new  cloth— an  inequality  which  would  have  the  effect 

*  See  Gess,  "  Christi  Zeugniss,"  pp.  19,  20. 

f  Ver.  36.  !*.  B.  D.  L.  X.  Z.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It"''"i.  omit  a-o  before  tpnnov.  i*. 
B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  add  axtnni  before  e-Lfla'A/ei.  i^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  X.,  ajdTfi, 
ai\u<p<ji:T}'7ti,  instead  of  axi^ei,  cvti<fuvti.  i^.  B.  C.  L.  X.  A.  add  to  e-iji'/.r/fia  before  to 
a~o  rov  unnov. 


1T8  COMMENTARY    ON"    ST.   LUKE. 

of  increasing  the  rent.  This  would  be  the  untoward  result  intended  in  Matthew  and 
Mark.  But  the  term  av/i<jiovdv,  to  Jiarmonize,  refers  much  more  naturally  to  a  contiast 
in  appearance  between  the  two  cloths.  The  futures,  will  rend,  will  agree,  in  the  Alex, 
reading,  may  be  defended  ;  but  are  they  not  a  correction  proceeding  from  the  use  of 
the  future  in  the  second  parable  {will  break,  will  be  spilled,  will  2}erish,  ver.  37)  ?  The 
corrector,  in  this  case,  could  not  have  remembered  that,  in  the  case  of  the  wine  and 
the  leathern  bottles,  the  damage  is  only  produced  after  a  time,  while  in  the  garment 
it  is  inmiediate.  To  sum  up  :  in  Matthew  and  Matk  there  is  only  a  single  damage, 
that  which  befalls  the  old  garment,  the  rent  of  which  is  enlarged  ;  in  Luke  the  dam- 
age is  twofold  :  in  one  case  affecting  the  new  garment,  which  is  cut  into  to  patch  the 
other  ;  in  the  other,  affecting  the  old  garment,  as  iu  Matthew  and  Mark,  but  consist- 
ing in  the  patchwork  appearance  of  the  cloths,  and  not  in  the  enlargement  of  the 
rent. 

In  the  application  it  is  impossible  not  to  connect  this  image  of  the  piece  of  new 
clolh  with  the  subject  of  the  previous  conversation,  the  rite  of  fasting,  while  we  ad- 
rait  that  .lesus  generalizes  the  question.  IVIc^ses  had  nowhere  prescribed  monthly  or 
weekly  fasts.  The  only  periodical  fast  commanded  in  the  law  was  annual — tliat  on 
the  day  of  atonement.  The  regular  fasts,  such  as  those  which  the  advei-saries  of 
Jesus  would  have  had  him  impose  on  His  disciples,  were  one  of  those  pharisaical  in- 
veuliims  which  the  Jews  called  a  hedge  about  the  law,  and  bj*  which  they  soirght  to 
complete  and  maintain  the  legal  system.  John  the  Baptist  liimself  had  been  unable 
to  do  anything  better  than  attach  himself  to  this  method.  This  is  the  patching-up 
process  which  is  indicated  iu  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  which  is  opposed  to  the  mode 
of  action  adopted  by  .Jesus — the  total  substitution  of  a  new  for  an  old  garment.  In 
Luke  the  image  is  still  more  full  of  meaning:  Jesus,  alluding  to  that  new,  uncon- 
strained, evangelical  fasting,  of  which  He  has  sp'jken  in  ver.  34,  and  which  He  can- 
not at  present  require  of  His  disciples,  makes  the  general  declaration  that  it  is 
necessary  to  wail  for  the  new  life  before  creating  its  forms  ;  it  is  impossible  to  an- 
ticipate it  by  attempting  to  adapt  to  the  legal  system,  under  which  His  disciples  are  as 
yet  living,  the  elements  of  the  new  state  which  He  promises  them.  His  mission  is 
not  to  labor  to  repair  and  maintain  an  educational  institution,  now  decaying  and 
waxing  old  {TraAnLovfievnv  Koi  yniMaKov).  He  is  not  a  palcher,  as  the  Pharisees  were, 
nor  a  reformer,  like  John  the  Baptist.  Opus  majus!  It  is  a  new  garment  that  He 
brings.  To  mix  up  the  old  work  with  the  new,  would  be  to  spoil  the  latter  without 
preserving  the  former.  It  would  be  a  violation  of  the  unity  of  the  spiritualism  which 
he  was  about  to  inaitgurate,  and  to  introduce  into  the  legal  system  an  offensive  med- 
ley. Would  not  the  least  particle  of  evangelical  freedom  sullice  to  make  every  legal 
observance  fall  into  disuse  ?  Better  then  let  the  old  garment  remain  as  it  is,  until  the 
time  comes  to  substitute  the  new  for  it  altogether,  than  try  to  patch  it  up  with  strips 
taken  from  the  latter  !  As  Lange  says  ("  Leben  Jesu,"  ii.  p.  680) :  "  The  work  of 
Jesus  is  too  good  to  use  it  in  repairing  the  worn  garment  of  pharisaical  Judaism, 
which  could  never  thereby  be  made  into  anything  better  than  the  assumed  garb  of  a 
beggar."  This  proftmnd  idea  of  the  mingling  of  the  new  holiness  with  the  ancient 
legalism  comes  out  more  clearly  from  Luke's  simile,  and  cannot  have  been  introduced 
into  the  words  of  Jesus  by  him.  Neander  thinks  that  the  old  garment  must  be  re- 
garded as  the  image  of  the  old  unregenerate  nature  of  the  disciples,  ou  which  Jesus 
could  not  impose  the  forms  of  the  new  life.     But  the  moral  nature  of  man  cannot  be 


N 


CHAP.  V.  :  37,  38.  179 

compared  In  a  c:a,rnK'iit  ;  it  Is  (lie  m;in  himself.*  Gess  applies  the  imaioce  of  the  piece 
of  uew  clolh  to  tlio  ascL'ticisiu  of  Joiiii  tlio  Baptist.  Thi.s  lueanin,^:  ini^ht  siillice  for 
the  form  of  il  in  Matthew  and  Marlv  ;  hut  it  leaves  Luke'a  form  of  it  (a  piece  of  tlic 
uew  sT'irment)  une.xpiaiiied. 

What  a  view  of  His  mission  this  word  of  Jesus  reveals  ■  "What  iilofty  conception 
of  the  work  lie  came  to  accomplish  !  From  wliat  a  he'giit  He  looks  down,  not  only 
on  the  Pharisees,  but  on  John  himself,  the  great  representative  of  the  old  covenant, 
the  greatest  of  those  born  of  wumen  !  And  all  this  is  expressed  in  the  ssimplest,  home- 
liest manner,  thrown  off  with  the  greatest  facility  !  He  speaks  as  a  being  to  who>ii 
nothing  is  so  natural  as  the  subhme.  All  that  has  been  called  the  system  of  Paul,  uU 
that  this  apostle  hhnself  designates  his  gospel — the  decisive  contrast  between  the 
two  covenants,  the  mutual  exclusiveucss  of  the  systems  of  law  and  grace,  of  tho 
oldiu'sx  of  the  ktkr  and  tite  newness  of  ihc  spirit  (Rom.  7  :  0),  this  inexorable  dilemma  : 
"  If  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of  works  ;  if  il  be  ofwoiks,  then  is  it  no  more 
grace"  (Kom.  11  ;  (i),  whicii  constitutes  the  substance  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans 
and  the  Galatians — all  is  contained  in  this  homely  tigure  of  a  garment  patched  with  a 
piece  of  cloth,  or  with  part  of  a  new  garment  !  How  can  any  one,  after  this,  main- 
tain that  Jesus  was  not  conscious  fiom  the  beginning  of  the  bearing  of  His  work,  as 
well  of  the  task  He  had  to  accomplish  in  regard  to  the  law,  as  of  His  Jkssianic 
dignity?  How  can  any  one  contend  that  the  Twelve,  to  whom  we  owe  the  preserva- 
tion of  this  paiable.  were  only  narrow  Jewish  Christians,  as  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
their  law  as  the  most  extreme  men  of  the  party?  If  they  perceived  the  meaning  of 
this  saymg  alone,  the  pail  attiibutcd  to  them  becomes  impossible.  And  if  the}''  had 
no  comprehensi  )n  of  il,  how  was  il  that  they  thought  it  worthy  of  a  place  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  which  they  handed  down  with  such  care  to  the  Church  ? 

Often,  after  having  presented  an  idea  by  means  of  a  parable,  from  a  feeling  that 
the  figure  employed  fails  to  represent  it  completely,  Jesus  immediately  adds  u  second 
paialdo,  designed  to  set  forth  another  aspect  of  the  same  idea.  In  this  way  aie 
formed  what  may  be  called  the  pairs  of  parables,  which  are  so  often  met  with  in  the 
Gospels  (the  grain  of  mustard-seed  and  the  leaven  ;  the  treasure  and  the  pearl  ;  the 
unwise  builder  .and  the  imjirudeut  warrior  ;  the  sower  and  the  tares).  Following  the 
same  method,  Jesus  here  adds  to  the  parable  of  the  piece  of  clolh  that  of  ihcleathoru 
bottles. 

Vers.  37,  38  f  The  Second  Parable. — The  figure  is  taken  from  the  Oiicntal  custom 
of  p  eserving  liquids  in  leathern  bottles,  made  generally  of  goat-skins.  "  No  one," 
says  ^I.  Pierotli,  "  travels  in  Palestine  without  having  a  leathern  bottle  filled  with 
water  among  his  luggage.  These  battles  preserve  the  water  for  driukuig,  without 
impurling  any  ill  taste  to  it;  also  wine,  oil,  honey,  and  inilk."t  In  this  parable 
theie  is  evidently  an  advance  ou  the  preceding,  as  we  always  find  in  the  case  of 
double  parables.  This  difference  of  meaning,  misapprehended  by  Neander  and  the 
grea'er  part  of  interpreters,  comes  out  more  patticuhu'ly  from  two  features  :  1.  Tho 
oppasiti(ni  between  the  irnily  of  the  garment  in  the  first,  and  the  ])lurality  of  the  bot- 
tles in  the  second  ;  2.  The  fact  that,  since  the  new  wine  answers  to  the  new  garment, 


*  Eph.  4  :  22,  24,  is  a  metaphor,  not  a  parable. 

f  Ver.  38.  !*.  B.  L.  and  some  ]Mnn.  omit  the  words,  mi  n/uooTepni  avvTrjpowTnt. 
X  "Macpelali,"  p.   78.     The  author  gives  a  detailed  description  of  the  way  in 
•which  these  bullies  are  made. 


180  COMMENTARY    OK    ST.  LUKE. 

the  new  bottles  must  represent  a  different  and  entirely  new  idea.  In  fact,  Jesus  here 
is  no  longer  opposini^  the  evangelical  principle  to  the  legal  principle,  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  Ihe  one  to  those  of  the  other.  Two  complaints  were  raised  against 
Jesus  :  Fint.  His  ntgligence  of  the  legal  forms  ;  to  this  accusation  He  has  just  re- 
plied. Second.  His  contempt  for  the  repiesentatives  of  legahsm,  and  His  sympathy 
with  those  who  had  thrown  off  the  theocratic  discipline.  It  is  to  this  second  charge 
that  He  now  replies.  Nothing  can  be  more  simple  than  our  parable  from  this  point 
of  view.  The  new  wine  represents  that  living  and  healthy  spirituality  which  flows 
so  abundantly  through  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  bottles,  the  mtn  who  are  to 
become  the  depositaries  of  this  principle,  and  to  preserve  it  for  mankind.  And 
whom  in  Israel  will  Jesus  choose  to  fulfil  this  part?  The  old  practitioners  of  legal 
observance  ?  Pharisees  puffed  up  with  the  idea  of  their  own  merit  ?  Rabbis  jaded 
with  textual  discussions?  Such  persons  have  nothing  to  learn,  nothing  to  receive 
from  Him  !  If  associated  willi  Hi§  work,  they  could  not  fail  to  falsify  it,  by  mixing 
up  with  His  instructions  the  old  prejudices  with  which  they  are  imbued  ;  or  even  if 
they  should  yield  their  hearts  for  a  moment  to  the  lofly  thought  of  Jesus,  it  would 
put  all  their  religious  notions  and  rouliue  devotion  to  the  rout,  just  as  new  and  sjiark- 
ling  wine  bursts  a  worn-out  leathern  bottle.  Where,  then,  shall  He  choose  His  future 
instruments?  Among  those  who  have  neither  merit  nor  wisdom  of  their  own.  He. 
needs  fiesh  natures,  souls  whose  only  merit  is  their  receptivity,  new  men  in  the  sense 
of  the  homo  novus  among  the  Romans,  fair  tablets  on  which  His  hand  may  write  the 
characters  of  divine  truth,  without  coming  across  the  old  traces  of  a  false  human  wis- 
dom. "  God,  I  thank  Thee,  because  Thou  hast  hidden  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  to  these  babes"  (Luke  10:21).  These  babes 
will  save  the  tiuth.  and  it  will  save  them  ;  this  is  expressed  bj'  these  last  words  : 
"  and  both,  the  wine  aad  the  bottles,  are  preserved."  These  words  are  omitted  in 
Luke  by  some  Alex.  They  are  suspected  of  having  been  added  from  Matthew, 
where  they  are  not  wanting  in  an}''  document  ;  Meyer's  conjecture,  that  they  have 
been  suppressed,  in  accordance  with  Jtlark,  is  less  probable. 

It  has  been  thought  that  the  old  bottles  represent  the  rmregenerate  nature  of  man, 
and  the  new  bottles,  hearts  renewed  by  the  Gospel.  But  Jesus  would  not  have  rep- 
resented the  destruction  of  the  old  corrupt  nature  by  the  Gospel  as  a  result  to  be 
dreaded  ;  and  He  would  scarcely  have  compared  new  hearts,  the  works  of  His  Holy 
Spirit,  to  bottles,  the  existence  of  which  precedes  that  of  the  wine  which  they  con- 
tain. Lange  and  Gess  see  in  the  old  bottles  a  fiirure  of  the  legal  forms,  in  the  new 
bottles  the  image  of  the  evangelical  forms.  But  Christian  institutions  are  an  ema- 
nation of  the  Christian  spirit,  while  the  bottles  exist  independently  of  the  wine  with 
which  they  are  filled.  And  Jesus  would  not  have  attached  equal  importance  to  the 
preservation  of  the  wine  and  of  the  bottles,  as  He  does  m  the  words  :  "  And  both  are 
preserved."  It  is  a  question,  then,  here  of  the  preservation  of  the  Gospel,  and  of 
the  salvation  of  the  individuals  who  are  the  depositaries  of  it.  Jesus  returns  here  to 
the  fact  which  was  the  occasion  of  the  whole  scene,  and  which  had  called  forth  the 
dissatisfaction  of  His  adversaries,  the  call  of  Levi  the  publican.  It  is  this  bold  act 
which  He  justifies  in  the  spcond  parable,  after  having  vindicated,  in  the  first,  the 
prmciple  on  which  it  was  based.  A  new  system  demands  new  persons.  This  same 
truth  will  be  applied  on  a  larger  scale,  when,  through  the  labors  of  St.  Paul,  the 
gospel  shall  pass  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  who  are  the  new  men  in  the  kingdom 
of  God. 


CHAP.  V.  :  39.  181 

Ver.  89.*  The  Third  Parable. — The  thorough  opposition  -wliich  Jesus  has  just  es- 
tablished lictwcen  tiie  lee;al  system  and  tlie  evangelical  system  (first  parable),  then 
between  the  representatives  of  the  one  and  those  of  the  other  (second  parable)  must 
not  lead  the  organs  of  the  new  principles  to  treat  those  of  the  ancient  order  with 
harshness.  They  must  rememl)er  thai  it  is  not  easy  to  pass  from  a  system,  Tvith 
which  one  has  been  identified  from  childhood,  to  an  entirely  different  principle  of 
life.  Such  men  must  be  allowed  time  to  familiarize  themselves  with  tlie  new  princi- 
ple that  is  presented  to  them  ;  and  we  must  beware  how  we  turn  our  backs  upon 
them,  if  they  do  not  answer,  as  Levi  the  publican  did,  to  the  first  call.  The  conver- 
sion of  a  publican  ma)-  be  sudden  as  lightning,  but  that  of  a  scrupulous  observer  of 
the  law  will,  as  a  rule,  be  a  work  of  prolonged  effort.  This  figure,  like  that  of  the 
preceding  [larable,  is  taken  from  the  actual  circumstances.  Conversation  follows  a 
me.d  ;  the  wine  in  the  bottles  ciiculates  among  the  guests.  "With  the  figure  of  the 
bottles,  which  contain  the  wine,  is  easil}'  connected  the  idea  of  the  individuals  who 
drink  it.  The  new  wine,  however  superior  rnay  be  its  quaiitj',  owing  to  its  sharper 
flavor,  is  always  repugnant  to  the  palate  of  a  man  accustomed  to  wine,  the  rough- 
ness of  which  lias  been  softened  by  age.  In  the  same  way,  it  is  natural  that  those 
who  have  long  rested  in  (he  works  of  the  law,  should  at  first  take  alarm — Jesus  can 
well  understand  it — at  the  piinciple  of  pure  spirituality.  It  is  altogether  an  error  in 
the  Alex,  that  has  erased  here  the  word  eiOeui,  iirunediitebj.  The  very  idea  of  the 
parable  is  concentrated  in  this  adverb.  "We  must  not  judge  such  people  by  their  first 
impression.  The  antipathy  which  they  experience  at  the  first  moment  will  perhaps 
give  place  to  a  contrary  feeling.  "We  must  give  them  time,  Jis  Jesus  did  Xicodcmus. 
There  is  a  tone  of  kindly  humor  in  these  ■nords  :  for  he  snith,  "  Attempt  to  bring 
over  to  gospel  views  these  old  followers  of  legal  routine,  and  immediately  they  I  til 
you  .  .  ."  If,  with  llie  Alex,  the  positive  xftV'^'''oi  h  read  :  "  the  old  is  mild," 
the  repugnance  for  the  new  wiue  is  more  strongly  marked  than  if  we  read,  with  the 
T.  T{.,  the  c(;mparative  :  xPV'^'^oTepos ,  milder;  for  in  the  first  case  the  antitliesis  im- 
plied is  :  "  The  new  is  not  mild  at  all."  As  the  idea  of  comparison  runs  through  (he 
entire  phrase,  the  copyists  were  induced  to  substitute  the  comparative  for  the  posi- 
tive.    The  Alex,  reading  is  therefore  preferable. 

"  It  was  a  great  moment,"  as  Gess  truly  saj's,  "  when  Jesus  proclaimed  in  a  sin- 
gle breath  these  three  things  :  the  absolute  nevvuess  of  His  Spirit,  Ilis  dignity  as  the 
Husband,  and  the  nearness  of  His  violent  death."  If  the  first  parable  contains  the 
^erm  of  Paul's  doctrine,  and  tlie  second  foreshadows  His  work  among  the  Gentiles, 
the  tliiid  lays  down  the  principle  whence  He  derived  His  mode  of  acting  toward  His 
fellow-countrymen  ;  making  Himself  all  things  to  all  by  subjectinir  Himself  to  the 
law,  in  order  to  gain  them  that  were  under  (lie  law  (1  Cor.  9  :  19,  20).  What  gentle- 
ness, condescension,  and  charity  breathe  through  this  saying  of  Jesus  !  Vv'iiat 'sweet- 
ness, grace,  and  appropriateness  characterize  its  form  !  Ziller  would  have  us  believe 
("  Apostelgcsch."  p.  15)  that  Luke  invented  this  touching  saying,  and  added  it  on  his 
own  authority,  in  order  to  render  the  decided  Paulinism  of  the"  two  preceding  par- 
ables acceptable  to  Jewish-Christian  readers.  But  does  he  not  see  that  in  saying  this 
he  vanquishes  him.self  by  his  own  hand  ?  If  the  two  former  parables  are  .so  Pauline, 
that  Luke  thought  be  must  soften  down  their  meaning  by  a  corrective  of  his  own  in- 
vention, how  comes  it  to  pass  that  the  two  other  Syn..  the  Gospels  which  are  in  the 
main  .lewi.sh-Christian,  have  transmitted  them  to  tiie  Church,  without  the  sliirhlest 
softening  down  V    Criticism  sometimes  loses  its  clear-sightedness  through  excessive 

*  D.  ItP'^ii"',  and  probably  En.sebius,  omit  this  verse.     !*.  B.  C.  L.  omit  evOcwS. 
it.  B.  L.  two  Mnu.  Syi"'\,  xPV<^'o<:  instead  oi  xPV'^'orefjvc. 


182  COMMEKTAKY    ON    bX.  LUKE. 

sharpness.  That  the  iiltra-Pauline  Maicion  slioiild  have  omitterl  this  third  parable  is 
perfectly  natural  ;  it  proves  that  he  thoroughly  understood  it,  for  it  carries  with  it 
the  condemnation  of  his  system.  But  no  consequence  unfavorable  to  its  authenticity 
can  be  drawn  from  this.  The  omission  of  this  veise  in  D.,  and  some  versions,  is  no 
less  easily  explained  by  its  omission  in  the  two  other  synoptics. 

The  independence  of  Luke's  text,  and  the  oiiginality  of  its  sources,  come  out 
clearly  from  this  last  passage,  which  forms  such  an  excellent  close  to  this  portion. 
Tlie  difference  which  we  have  pointed  out  in  the  purport  of  the  first  parable,  a  dif- 
ference which  is  entirely  in  Luke's  favor,  also  attests  tiie  excellence  of  the  document 
from  which  he  has  drawn.  As  to  the  others,  they  are  no  more  under  obligation  to 
Luke  than  Luke  is  to  them  ;  would  they,  of  their  own  accord,  have  made  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  more  anti-legal  than  it  was  ? 

5.  A  Sabbath  Scene  :  6  : 1-5. — The  two  Sabbath  scenes  which  follow,  provoke,  at 
last,  the  outbreak  of  the  conflict,  wliich,  as  we  have  seen,  has  long  been  gathering 
strength.  We  have  already  noted  several  symptoms  of  the  hostility  which  was  be- 
ginning to  be  entertained  toward  Jesus  :  ver.  14  {for  a  testimony  unto  tlicm) ;  ver.  21 
{Jie  blaHiyJiemeth)  ;  vers.  30-3o  (the  censure  Implied  in  both  questions).  It  is  the  ap- 
parent contempt  of  Jesus  for  the  ordinance  of  the  Sabbath,  which  in  Luke  as  well  as 
in  John  (chaps.  5  and  9).  alike  in  Galilee  and  in  Judaea,  provokes  the  outbreak  of  this 
latent  irritation,  and  an  open  rupture  between  Jesus  and  the  dominant  party.  Is 
there  not  something  in  this  complete  parallelism  that  abundantly  compensates  for  the 
superficial  differences  between  the  s^'noptical  narrative  and  John's? 

Vers.  1-5*  ^\iq  Xevm.  second-first  is  omitted  by  the  Alex.  But  this  omission  is 
condemned  b}^  Tischendorf  himself.  Matthew  and  Mark  presented  nothing  at  all  like 
it,  and  they  did  not  know  what  meaning  to  give  to  the  word,  which  is  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  whole  compass  of  sacred  and  profane  literature.  There  are  half  a  score 
explanations  of  it.  Chrysostom  supposed  that  when  two  festival  and  Sabbath  days 
followed  each  other,  the  first  received  the  name  of  second-first:  the  first  of  the  two. 
This  meaning  does  not  give  a  natural  explanation  of  the  expression.  "Wetslein  and 
Slorr  saj^  that  the  first  Sabbalh  of  the  first,  second,  and  third  months  of  the  year 
were  called  first,  second,  and  third  ;  the  second-first  Sabbath  would  thus  be  Wia  first 
Sabbath  of  the  second  month.  This  meaning,  although  not  very  natural,  is  less 
forced.  Scaliger  thought  that,  as  they  reckoned  seven  Sabbaths  from  the  IGfh 
Nisan.  the  second  day  of  the  Pa?sover  feast,  to  Pentecost,  the  second-first  Sabbath 
denoted  the  first  of  the  seven  Sabbaths  :  the  first  Sabbath  after  tbe  second  day  of  the 
Passover.  This  explanation,  received  by  De  Wette,  Neander,  and  other  moderns, 
agrees  very  well  with  the  season  when  the  following  scene  must  have  taken  place. 
But  the  term  does  not  correspond  naturall}^  with  the  idea.  Wieseler  supposes  that 
the  first  Sabbath  of  each  of  the  seven  years  which  formed  a  Sabbatic  cycle  was  called 
first,  second,  third  Sabbath  :  thus  the  second-first  Sabbath  would  denote  the  first 
Sabbath  of  the  second  year  of  the  septenary  cycle.  This  explanation  has  been  favor- 
ably received  by  modern  exegesis.  It  appears  to  us,  however,  less  probable  than  ihat 
which  Louis  Cappel  was  the  fiist  to  offer  :  The  civil  year  of  the  Israelites  commenc- 
ing in  autunm,  in  the  monlh  Tizri  (about  mid-September  to  mid-October),  and  the 
ecclesiastical  year  in  the  month  Nisan  (about  mid-March  to  mid- April),  there  were 

*  Ver.  1.  5*.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr^'^''.  If'W.  omit  (^evrepoTvpuru.  Ver.  2.  i*.  B.  C. 
L.  X.  some  Mnn.  omit  avroiS.  Ver.  8.  S.  B.  D.  L.  X.  Syr.  omit  ovres.  Ver.  4.  ii. 
D.  K.  n.  some  Mnn.  omit  eAaSe  Kai  ;  B.  C.  L.  X.  read  z.a^uv.  Ver.  5.  D.  places 
this  verse  after  ver.  10.     See  at  ver,  5  (the  end.) 


CHAP.   VI.  :  1-5.  183 

thus  every  year  two  first  Sabbaths  :  one  at  the  commencement  of  the  civil  year,  of 
which  the  name  would  have  Imen  Jirst-firnt ;  the  other  at  the  beginning  of  the  relig- 
ious year,  which  would  be  called  second  first.  This  explanation  is  very  simple  in  it- 
self, and  the  form  of  the  Greek  term  favors  it :  sccond-Jlrd  signifies  naturally  a  first. 
doubled  or  ticicc  over  {bme).  But  there  is  yet  another  explanation  which  appears  to 
us  still  more  probable.  Proposed  by  Selden,*  it  has  been  reproduced  quite  lately  by 
AudreiC  in  his  excellent  article  on  the  day  of  Jesus'  death. f  When  the  observers  in- 
trusted with  the  dut}'  of  ascertaining  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  with  a  view 
to  fixing  the  first  day  of  the  month,  did  not  present  themselves  before  the  coiuniissiou 
of  the  Sanhedrim  assemljled  to  receive  their  deposition  until  after  the  sacrifice,  this 
daj'  was  indeed  declared  the  first  of  the  month,  or  monthly  (aa.33aT^v  -^pCiTov,  fiirst 
Habbath)  ;  but  as  the  lime  of  offering  the  sacrifice  of  the  new  moon  was  passed,  they 
sanctified  the  following  da}',  or  second  of  the  month  {cdi33aTov  dtvrepoTrpdirov,  second- 
first  Sabbath),  as  well.  This  meaning  perfectl}^  agrees  with  the  idea  naturally  ex- 
pressed b}-  this  term  (a  first  twice  over),  and  with  the  impression  it  gives  of  having 
been  taken  from  the  subtleties  of  the  Jewish  calendar. 

Bleek,  ill-satisfied  with  these  various  ex[)lanations,  supposes  an  interpolation. 
But  why  should  it  have  occurred  in  Luke  rather  than  in  Matthew  and  ]\Iaik  V  Meyer 
thinks  that  a  copyist  had  written  in  the  margin  'irpwru),  first,  in  opposition  to  tripu,  the 
<^//,''/' (Sabbath),  ver.  G  ;  that  the  next  copyist,  wishing,  in  consideration  of  the  Sab- 
ba'h  indicated  4  :ol,  to  correct  this  gloss,  wrote  Jfi/rt'pw,  second,  in  place  of  ^pwru, 
fird  ;  and  that,  lastly,  from  these  two  glosses  together  came  the  word  second-fu:st . 
■which  has  made  its  way  into  the  text.  What  a  tissue  of  impiobabililies  !  Holtzmaun 
thinks  that  Luke  had  written  irpuru,  tJie  first,  d&tiuir  from  the  journey  recorded  in 
4:41,  and  that  in  consideiation  of  4:31  some  over-careful  corrector  added  the 
second;  whence  our  reading.  But  is  not  the  interval  which  separates  our  narrative 
from  4  :  44  loo  great  for  Luke  to  have  emploj'ed  the  word  first  in  refeiencu  to  this 
journey?  And  what  object  could  he  have  had  in  expiessing  so  particularly  this 
quality  of  first  ?  LastI3^  how  did  the  gloss  of  this  copyist  find  its  way  into  such  a 
large  number  of  documents?  Weizsiicker  ("  Unters."  p.  o'J)  opposes  the  tw^o  fir?t  Sab- 
baths mentioned  in  4  :  IG,  33,  to  the  two  mentioned  here  (vers.  1,  C),  and  thinks  that 
the  name  second-fwst  means  here  Wxe  first  of  the  second  group.  How  can  any  one  at- 
tribute such  absurd  trifling  to  a  serious  writer  !  This  strange  term  cannot  Lave  been 
invented  by  Luke  ;  neither  could  it  have  been  introduced  accidentally  by  the  copyists 
Taken  evidently  from  the  Jewish  vocabulary,  it  holds  its  place  in  Luke,  as  a  witness 
attesting  the  originidity  and  antiquity  of  his  sources  of  information.  Further,  this 
precise  designati  )n  of  the  Sabbath  when  the  incident  took  place  points  to  a  narrator 
who  witnessed  the  scene. 

From  ^Mark's  expiession  Trnpa-n-opeveaOai,  to  pass  hy  the  side  of,  it  would  seem  to 
follow  that  Jesus  was  passing  along  the  side  of,  and  not,  as  Luke  says,  across  the 
field  (tUaTTopeveaOni).  But  as  Mark  adds  :  through  the  corn,  it  is  clear  that  he  describes 
tsvo  adjacent  fields,  separated  by  a  path.  The  act  of  the  disciples  was  expressly 
authoiized  by  the  law  (Deut.  23  :  25).  But  it  was  done  on  the  Sabbath  day  ;  there 
was  the  grievance.  To  gather  and  rub  out  the  ears  was  to  harvest,  to  grind,  to  labor  ! 
ii  was  an  infraction  of  the  thirty-nine  articles  which  the  Pharisees  had  framed  into 

*  "  De  anno  civili  et  calendario  veteris  ecclesife  judaica?. " 
\  In  the  jotirual  :  JJciceis  dcs  Glnubens,  September,  1870. 


184  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

a  Sabbatic  code.  ■^6xovTci,nihbLnff out,  is  designed]y  put  at  the  end  of  the  phrase: 
this  is  the  labor  !  Meyer,  pressing  llie  letter  of  Murk's  text,  o(hv  noielv,  to  make  a 
■way,  maintains  that  the  disciples  Avere  not  thinking  of  eating,  but  simply  wanted  to 
make  themselves  a  passage  across  the  field  by  plucking  the  ears  of  corn.  According 
lo  him,  the  middle  Trouladiu,  not  the  active  iroulv,  would  have  been  necessary  fur  the 
ordinary  sense.  He  translates,  therefore  :  they  cleared  a  way  by  iTiucking  {TiAAovTei) 
the  ears  of  corn  (Mark  omits  rpuxovrei,  ruhhiiig  them  out).  He  concludes  from  this 
that  Mark  alone  has  preserved  the  exact  form  of  the  incident,  which  has  been  altered 
in  the  other  two  through  the  influence  of  the  next  example,  Avhich  refers  to  food. 
Holtzmann  takes  advantage  of  this  idea  to  support  the  hypothesis  of  a  proto-Mark. 
But,  1.  What  traveller  would  ever  think  of  clearing  a  passage  through  a  iield  of 
wheat  by  plucking  ear  after  ear  ?  2.  If  we  were  to  lay  stress  on  the  active  •koizIv,  as 
Meyer  does,  it  would  signify  that  the  disciples  made  a  road  for  the  public,  and  not 
for  themselves  alone  ;  for  in  this  case  also  the  middle  would  be  necessary  !  The 
ordinary  sense  is  therefore  the  only  one  possible  even  in  Mark,  and  the  critical  con- 
clusions in  favor  of  the  proto-Mark  are  without  foundation.  The  Hebraistic  form  of 
Luke's  phrase  {kykvero  .  .  .  kuI  eTt'/.'Aov)  which  is  not  found  in  the  other  two, 
proves  that  he  has  a  particular  document.  As  to  who  these  accusers  were,  comp. 
5  :  17,  21  :  u0-'6'd.  The  word  avTols,  which  the  Alex,  omits,  has  perhaps  been  added 
on  account  of  the  plural  that  follows  :  Whp  do  ye  .  .  .  .?  It  follows  from  this  in- 
cident that  Jesus  passed  a  spring,  and  conscquentl}'  a  Passover  also,  in  Galilee  be- 
fore His  passion.  A  remarkable  coincidence  also  with  the  narrative  of  John  (G  :  4). 
The  illustration  taken  from  1  Sam.  21,  cited  in  vers.  8  and  4,  is  very  appropiiateli*" 
cliosen.  Jesus  would  certainly  have  had  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  the  act  of  the 
disciples,  although  opposed  perhaps  to  the  Pharisaic  code,  was  in  perfect  agreement 
with  the  lAIosaic  <;ominandnu  ut.  But  the  discussion,  if  placed  on  this  ground,  might 
have  degenerated  into  a  mere  casuistical  question  ;  He  therefore  transfers  it  to  a 
sphere  in  which  He  fetls  Himself  master  of  the  position.  The  conduct  of  David  rests 
upon  this  principle,  that  in  exceptional  casts,  when  a  moral  obligation  clashes  with  a 
ceremonial  law,  the  latter  ought  to  yield.  And  far  this  reason.  The  rite  is  a  means, 
but  the  moral  duty  is  an  end  ;  now,  in  case  of  conflict,  the  end  has  piiority  over  the 
means.  The  absurdity  of  Pharisaism  is  just  this,  that  U  subordinates  the  end  to  the 
means  It  was  the  duty  cf  the  high  priest  to  preserve  the  life  of  David  and  his  com- 
panions, having  regard  to  their  mission,  even  at  the  expense  of  the  ritual  command- 
ment ;  for  the  rite  exists  for  the  theocracy,  not  the  theocracy  for  the  rite.  Besides, 
Jesus  means  to  clinch  the  nail,  to  show  His  adversaries — and  this  is  the  sting  of  His 
reply — that  when  it  is  a  question  of  their  own  particular  advantage  (saving  a  head  of 
cattle  for  instance)  they  are  ready  enough  to  act  in  a  similar  way,  sacrificmg  the  rite 
to  what  they  deem  a  higher  interest  (13  :  11  et  seq.).  De  Wette  understands  ovdi  in 
the  sense  of  7io<  even:  "Do  j'ou  not  even  know  the  history  of  your  great  king?" 
This  sense  would  come  very  near  to  the  somewhat  ironical  turn  of  Mark  :  "  Have 
you  never  read  .  .  .  — never  once,  in  the  course  of  your  profound  biblical 
studies  ?"  But  it  appears  more  simple  to  explain  it  as  Bleek  does  :  '■  Have  j'^ou  not 
also  read  .  .  ?  Does  not  this  fact  appear  in  your  Bible  as  well  as  the  ordinance 
of  the  Sabbath  ?"  The  detail :  aiid  to  those  icho  tcere  loith  him,  is  not  distinctly  ex- 
pressed in  the  O.  T.  ;  but  whatever  Bleek  may  say,  it  is  implied  ;  David  would  not 
have  asked  for  five  loaves  for  himself  alone.  Jesus  mentions  it  because  He  wislies  to 
institute  a  parallel  between  His  apostles  and  David's  followers.     The  pron.  ovi  does 


CHAP.  VI.  :  1-G.  185 

not  refer  to  roH  fxer'  avrov  as  in  Matthew  (llie  present  e^eart.  docs  not  permit  of  it), 
but  to  aprovS,  as  the  objeiit  of  tpayelv ;  e'l  fii)  is  therefore  taken  here  in  its  regular  sense. 
It  is  not  so  in  Mattlie\v,  where  «  /z//  is  vised  as  in  Lulie  4  :  26,  27.  Mark  gives  llie 
name  of  the  higli  priest  as  Ahiathar,  while  according  to  1  Sam.  it  was  Ahinielecli,  his 
son  (comp.  3  Sam.  8  :  17  ;  1  Chn)n.  8  :  10),  or  his  father  (according  to  Josephus,  Antiq. 
vi.  13.  G).  The  question  is  obscure.  In  IVIalthew,  Jesus  gives  a  second  instance  of 
transgression  of  the  Sabbath,  the  labor  of  the  priesis  in  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  in  connection  with  the  buint-offerings  and  otiier  religious  services.  If  the  work 
of  God  in  the  leniple  liberates  man  from  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  rest,  how  much  more 
must  the  service  of  Iliiu  who  is  Lord  even  of  the  temple  raise  him  to  the  same 
liberty  ! 

The  Cod.  D.  and  one  Mn.  here  add  the  following  narrative  :  "  The  same  day, 
Jesus,  seeing  a  man  who  was  working  on  the  Sabbath,  saith  to  him  :  O  man,  if  thou 
knowest  what  thou  art  doing,  blessed  art  thou  ;  but  if  thou  knowest  not,  thou  art 
cursed,  anil  a  transgressor  of  the  law."  This  narrative  is  an  interpolation  similar  to 
that  of  the  story  in  John  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  but  with  this  difference, 
that  the  latter  is  proI)ably  the  record  of  a  real  fact,  while  the  former  can  only  be  an 
invention  or  a  perversion.  Nobody  could  have  labored  publicly  in  Israel  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  without  being  instantly  punished  ;  and  Jesus,  who  never  permitted  Himself 
the  slightest  infraction  of  a  true  commandment  of  Moses  (whatever  interpreters  may 
say  about  it),  certainly  would  not  have  authorized  this  premature  emancipation  ia 
any  one  else. 

After  having  treated  the  question  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  Jesus  rises  to  the 
principle.  Even  had  the  apostles  broken  the  Sabbath  rest,  they  would  not  have 
sinned;  for  the  Son  of  man  has  the  disposal  of  the  Sal>bath,  and  they  are  in  His 
service.  We  find  again  here  the  well  known  expression,  Kal  e?.eyev,  and  lie  said  to 
Vicm,  the  force  of  which  is  (see  at  ver.  36) :  "  Besides,  I  have  something  more  impor- 
tant to  tell  3'ou. "  Tlie  Sabbath,  as  an  educational  institution,  is  only  toicniaiu  until 
the  moral  development  of  mankind,  for  the  sake  of  which  it  was  instituted,  is  accom- 
plished. When  this  end  is  i.tlained,  the  means  naturally  fall  into  disuse.  Now,  this 
moment  is  reached  in  the  appearance  of  the  Son  of  man.  The  normal  representative 
of  the  race,  He  is  Himself  the  realization  of  this  end  ;  He  is  th(!refore  raised  above 
the  Sabbath  as  a  means  of  education  ;  He  may  consequently  modify  the  form  of  it, 
and  even,  if  He  think  tit,  abolish  it  altogether,  Kal.  :  even  of  the  Sabbath,  this  pecu- 
liar property  of  Jehovah  ;  with  how  much  greater  reason,  of  all  tlie  rest  of  the  law  !  * 
How  can  any  one  maintain,  in  tlie  face  cf  such  a  saying  as  this,  that  Jesus  only 
assumed  the  part  of  the  Jlessiali  after  the  conversation  at  Caesarea-Philippi  (9  :  18), 
and  when  moved  to  do  so  by  Peter  ? 

Mark  inserts  before  this  de(^laration  one  of  those  short  and  weighty  sayings  (he  has 
preserved  several  of  them),  which  he  cannot  have  invented  or  added  of  his  own 
authority,  and  which  the  other  two  Syn.  would  never  have  left  out,  had  they  made 

■"■  It  is  not  without  justification  tliat  Ritschl,  in  his  fine  work,  "  Entstehung  der 
altkatliol.  Kirche,"  2d  ed.,  sets  out  to  prove  frmn  this  passage,  which  is  common  to 
the  three  Syn.,  that  tlie  abolition  of  the  law,  tlie  ne(;essary  condition  of  Christian 
universalisin,  i.^  not  an  idea  imported  into  tlie  reliirif/u  of  Jesus  by  Paul,  but  an  in- 
tegral element  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself.  It  belongs  lo  that  common  fonndii- 
tiou  on  which  rest  i)oth  the  work  of  Paul  and  that  of  the  Twelve  ;  this  is  already 
proved  by  tlic  parable  of  the  two  garments  (ver.  36). 


18G  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.  LUKE.      • 

use  of  his  book  or  of  the  document  of  which  he  availed  himself  (the  proto-Mark) : 
"  The  Sabbath  is  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  God  did  not  cieate 
man  for  the  greater  glory  of  the  Sabbath,  bat  Fie  ordained  tlie  Sabbath  for  the  greater 
•welfare  of  man.  Consequently,  whenever  the  welfare  of  man  and  the  rest  of  the 
Sabbath  happen  to  clash,  the  Sabbath  must  yield.  So  that  {uare,  Mark  2  :  28)  the 
Son  of  man,  inasmuch  as  He  is  head  of  the  race,  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  this  inslitu- 
tion.  This  thought,  distinctly  expressed  in  Mark,  is  just  what  we  have  had  to  supply 
in  order  to  explain  the  argument  in  Luke. 

Are  we  authorized  to  infer  from  this  saying  the  immediate  abolition  of  every  Sab- 
batic institution  in  the  Christian  Church?  By  no  means.  Just  as,  in  His  declara- 
tion, vers.  84,  85,  Jesus  announced  not  the  abolition  of  fasting,  but  the  substitution 
of  a  more  spiritual  for  the  legal  fast,  so  this  saying  respecting  the  Sabbath  fore- 
shadows important  modilications  of  the  form  of  this  institution,  but  not  its  entire 
abolition.  It  will  cease  to  be  a  slavish  observance,  as  in  Judaism,  and  will  become 
the  satisfaction  of  an  inward  ueed.  Its  complete  abolition  will  come  to  pass  only 
when  redeemed  mankind  shall  all  have  reached  the  perfect  stature  of  the  Son  of  man. 
The  principle  :  The  Sabbath  is  made  for  man,  will  retain  a  certain  measure  of  its 
force  as  long  as  this  earthly  economy  shall  endure,  for  which  the  Sabbath  was  first 
established,  and  to  the  nature  of  which  it  is  so  thoroughly  fitted. 

0.  A  Second- Sabbath  Scene:  G  :  6-]!.— Vers.  3-11.*  Do  Matthew  and  Mark  place 
the  folloM'ing  incident  on  the  same  day  as  the  preceding  ?  It  is  impossible  to  say  (Tvd/uv, 
in  Mark,  does  not  refer  to  2  :  2;j,  but  to  1  :  21).  Luke  says  positively,  on  another 
Sabbath.  He  has  therefore  His  own  source  of  information.  This  is  confiimed  by 
the  character  of  the  style,  which  continues  to  be  decidedly  Hebraistic  (koI  .  .  . 
Ka]  .  .  .  instead  of  the  relative  pronoun).  The  withering  of  the  hand  denotes  para- 
lysis resulting  from  the  absence  of  the  vital  juices,  the  condition  which  is  commonly 
described  as  atrophy.  In  Matthew,  the  question  whether  it  is  right  to  heal  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  is  put  to  the  Lord  by  His  adversaries,  which,  taken  literally,  would  be 
highly  improbable.  It  is  evident  that  Matthew,  as  usual,  condenses  the  account  of. 
the  fact,  and  hastens  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  which  he  relates  at  greater  length  than 
the  others.  His  adversaries,  u)  doubt,  did  put  the  question,  but,  as  Luke  and  Mark 
tell  us,  simply  in  intention  and  by  Ibeir  looks.  They  watch  to  see  how  He  will  act. 
The  present  Oe/MiTEvei,  icliethcr  lie  heals,  in  the  Alex.,  would  refer  to  the  habit  of 
Je.sus,  to  His  principle  of  conduct.  This  turn  of  expression  is  too  far-fetched.  The 
spies  want  more  particularly  to  ascertain  what  He  will  do  now  ;■  from  the  fact  they 
will  easily  deduce  the  principle.  The  received  reading  fjepaTTEvaei,  whether  He  will 
heal,  must  therefore  be  preferred.  The  Rabbis  did  not  allow  of  any  medical  treat- 
ment on  the  Sabbath  day,  unless  delay  would  imperil  life  ;  the  strictest  school,  that 
of  Shammai,  forbade  even  the  consolation  of  the  sick  onthat  day  (Schabbat  xii.  1), 

Ver.  8.     Jesus  penetrates  at  a  glance  the  secret  spy  system  organized  against  Him. 

*  Ver,  7,  14  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  It.  omit  avTov  after  6e.  \k.  A.  D.  L.  IT,  : 
Ospairevei  instead  of  Oepa-nrevaFi.  ^*  B.  S.  X.  some  Mnn,  Syr.  It"''"!.  :  KaTr]yopei.v  in- 
stead of  KnrrjyopLav.  Ver.  8.  ii.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.:  av6pi  instead  of  avOpunu.  Ver.  9. 
!*.  B.  L.  :  enepuTo)  instead  of  etrepuTTjau.  ^.  B.  D.  L.  Itp'^rique  .  ^^^^5  ^^  instead  of  f/zas 
Ti.  5*.  B,  D,  L.  X.  Syr^'=''.  Itpi«'-'>i"«  :  aT^nlsnaL  instead  of  aroK-eivni.  Ver.  10.  13 
Mjj.  ;  avT(j  instead  of  ru  avBpunu,  which  is  tiie  reading  of  T.  R.  with  i>.  I).  L.  X.  It. 
T.  R.  with  K.  n,  several  Mnn,:  enmnaei'  ovrug  :  12  Mjj,  80  Mnn,  omit  ovru'^.  J*.  D, 
X,  several  jMnn.  It.  e^e-etvev.  11  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It,  omitvyirji.  13Mjj,many 
Mnn.  read  w?  1/  n>/'/,  which  T.  R.  with  i*.  B.  L.  omit. 


ciiAi'.    VI.  :  ;]-l  I.  187 

and  sfcms  to  take  pleasure  in  giving  the  work  He  is  about  to  perform  the  greatest 
publicity  possible.  Conunuuding  the  man  to  place  himself  in  the  midst  of  the  as- 
sembly, He  makes  him  the  subject  of  u  veritable  theological  demonstration.  Mat- 
thew omits  these  dramatic  details  \vhi(;h  Mark  and  Luke  liave  transmitted  to  us. 
Would  he  have  omitted  them  had  he  known  them  ?  He  could  not  have  had  tlie  al- 
leged proto-]\Iark  before  him,  unless  it  is  supposed  that  the  autlior  of  our  canonical 
Mark  added  these  details  on  his  own  authority.  But  in  this  case,  how  comes  ]\Iaik 
to  coincide  with  Luke,  who,  according  to  this  hypothesis,  had  not  our  actual  ^latk 
in  his  hanils,  but  simply  the  primitive  ^Lirk  (the  common  source  of  our  three  Syn.)? 
Here  plainly  is  a  lab^'iintli  from  which  criticism,  having  once  entered  on  a  wrong 
path,  is  unable  to  extricate  itself.  The  skilfulness  of  the  question  proposed  b}'  the 
Lord  (ver.  !))  consists  in  its  representing  good  omitted  as  evil  committed.  The  (pies- 
tiou  thus  puts  answers  itself  ;  for  what  Pharisee  would  venture  to  make  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  Sabbath  to  consi.'-t  in  a  permission  to  torture  and  kill  with  impunity  on  that 
day  ?  This  question  is  one  of  those  marks  of  genius,  or  rather  one  of  those  inspiia- 
tiou  of  the  heart,  wliich  enhance  our  knowledge  of  Jesus.  By  reason  of  His  com- 
passion, He  feels  Himself  responsible  for  all  the  suffering  which  He  fails  to  relieve. 
But,  it  may  be  asked,  could  He  not  have  put  oft"  the  cure  until  the  next  day?  To 
this  question  He  would  have  given  the  same  answer  as  any  one  of  us  :  To-morrow 
belongs  to  God  ;  onl}'  to-day  belongs  to  me.  The  present  i-tpurd),  I  ask  you  (Alex  ), 
is  more  direct  and  severe,  and  consequently  less  suited  the  Lord's  frame  of  mind  at 
this  moment,  than  the  fuluie  of  the  T.  K.  :  1  will  ask  you.  For  tlie  same  reason, 
"we  think,  we  must  read,  not  ft,  if,  or  is  it,  with  the  Alex.,  but  ri,  and  make  this  word 
not  a  complement  :  '  I  ask  you  what  is  allowable,"  a  form  in  which  the  intentional 
sharpness  of  His  address  is  softened  down  too  much  (see  the  conlrarj'  case,  7  .40), 
but  the  subject  of  tieart  :  "  I  ask  you  ;  answer  me  !  Wliat  is  permitted,  to  .  .  . 
or  to  .  .  .  for  in  my  position  I  must  do  one  or  the  other. "  JMaltliew  places  here 
the  illustration  of  the  sheep  fallen  into  a  ditch,  an  argument  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
is  better  placed  in  Luke  (14  :  5,  6).  Ver.  10.  A  profound  silence  (Mark  3  ;  4)  is  the 
only  answer  to  this  question  Those  who  lai  1  the  snare  are  taken  in  it  themselves. 
Jesus  then  surveys  His  adversaries,  ranged  around  Him,  withalougaud  solenm  gaze. 
This  striking  moment,  omitted  in  MattheM',  is  noticed  in  Luke  ;  in  Maik  it  is  de- 
scribed in  the  most  dramatic  manner.  We  feel  heie  how  much  Mark  owes  to  some 
source  of  iufoimatiou  closely  connected  with  the  person  of  the  Saviour  ;  he  describes 
the  feeling  of  sorrowful  indignation  which  ej'e-wilnesses  couid  read  in  His  glance  : 
"  with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardness  of  their  hearts."  The  command  Jesua 
gives  the  sick  man  to  stretch  forth  liis  hand,  affords  room  for  surprise.  Is  it  not  pre- 
cisely what  he  was  unable  to  do?  But,  like  cverj'  call  addressed  to  faith,  this  com- 
mand contained  a  promise  of  the  strength  necesFarj'  to  accomplish  it,  provided  the 
will  to  obey  was  there.  He  must  make  the  attempt,  depending  on  the  word  of  Jesus 
(ver.  5),  and  divinq.  power  will  accompany  the  elfoit.  The  word  vyirii  is  probably' 
taken  from  Matthew  ;  it  is  omitted  l)y  six  'Mjj.  It  would  be  hazardous,  perhaps,  to 
erase  also  the  words  cjr  7  oaa?;  wilii  the  Ihiee  Mjj.  which  omit  them.  It  is  here  that 
Cod.  D.  places  the  general  proposition,  ver.  5. 

The  Jewish-Christian  Gospel  which  Jerome  had  found  among  the  Nnzarenes  re- 
lates in  detail  the  prayer  of  this  sick  man  :  "  I  was  a  mason,  earning  my  livelihood 
with  my  own  hands  ;  I  pray  thee,  Jesus,  to  reslorp  me  to  health,  in  order  that  I  may 
not  with  shame  beg  my  bread."     This  is  an  instance  of  how  ampliiicatiou  and  vul- 


18S  (.'UMMKNTAUY    OS    ST.   J^UKE. 

garity  meet  us  directly  we  step  beyond  the  threshold  of  the    canonical  Gospels. 
Apostolical  dignity  has  disappeared. 

The  word  avoia  (ver.  11),  properly  wiatiness,  by  which  Luke  expresses  the  effect 
produced  on  the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  denotes  literallj''  the  absence  of  I'oi'c,  of  the 
power  to  discriminate  the  true  from  the  false.  They  were  fools  through  rage,  Luke 
means.  In  fact,  passion  destroys  a  man's  sense  of  the  good  and  true.  IMatthew  and 
j\Iaik  notice  merely  the  external  result,  the  plot  which  from  this  moment  was  laid 
against  the  life  of  Jesus  :  "  They  took  counsel  to  kill  Him  ;"  Mark  adds  to  the  Phari- 
sees, the  Herodians.  The  former,  in  fact,  could  take  no  effectual  measures  in  Galilee 
against  the  person  of  Jesus  without  the  concurrence  of  Herod  ;  and  in  oider  to  ohtain 
this,  it  was  necessaiy  to  gain  over  his  counsellors  to  their  plans.  Why  should  they 
not  hope  to  induce  this  king  to  do  to  Jesus  what  he  had  already  done  to  John  the 
Baptist  ? 

Hollzmann  thinks  it  may  be  proved,  by  the  agreement  of  certain  words  of  Jesus 
in  the  three  narratives,  that  they  must  have  had  a  common  written  source.  As  if 
words  so  striking  as  these  :  77ie  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath  day,  could  not 
be  preserved  liy  oral  tradition  !  The  characteristic  divergences  winch  we  have  ob- 
served at  every  line  in  the  historical  sketch  of  the  narrative,  are  incompatible,  as  we 
have  seen,  with  the  use  of  a  common  document. 

THIKD  CYCLE.  — CHAP.  6  :  12-8  :  56. 
From  the  Election  of  the  Twelte  to  their  First  Mission. 

In  the  following  section  we  shall  see  the  Galilean  ministry  reach  its  zenith  ;  it  be- 
gins with  the  institution  of  theapostolate  and  the  most  important  of  Jesus'  discourses 
during  His  sojourn  in  Galilee,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ;  and  it  ends  with  a  cycle  of 
miracles  that  display  the  extraordmary  power  of  Jesus  in  all  its  grandeur  (8  :  23-50). 
The  hostility  against  Him  seems  to  moderate;  but  it  is  sharpening  its  weapons  in 
secret  ;  in  a  very  little  while  it  will  break  out  afresh. 

This  section  comprises  eleven  portions  :  1*/,  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve,  and  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (6  :  12-49)  ;  2d,  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant 
(7  : 1-10)  ;  ?>d,  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain  (7  :  11-17)  ;  4/«,  the  qui  stinn  r)f 
John  the  Baptist,  and  the  discourse  of  Jesus  upon  it  (7  :  18-35)  ;  bth,  the  woman  that 
was  a  sinner  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  (7  :  36-50)  ;  Qth,  the  women  who  ministered  to  Jesus' 
suppoit  (8  : 1-3)  ;  1th,  the  parable  of  the  sower  (8 :  4-18)  ;  Wi,  the  visit  of  the  mother 
and  brethren  of  Jesus  (8  :  19-2t)  ;  Wi,  the  stilling  of  the  storm  (8  ;  22-25) ;  10///,  llie 
healing  of  the  demoniac  of  Gadara  (8  :  26-39  ;  lltJi,  the  raising  of  Jai'rus'  daughter 
(8  :  40-56). 

1.  The  Choofnnrj  of  the  Tireke,  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount :  6  :  12-49.~Our  afiix- 
ing  this  title  to  this  portion  implies  two  things  :  1st,  that  there  is  a  close  connection 
between  the  two  facts  contained  in  this  title  ;  2d.  that  the  discourse,  Luke  6  :  20-49, 
is  the  same  as  that  we  read  in  Matt.  5-7.  The  truth  of  the  first  supposition,  from 
Luke's  point  of  view,  appears  from  ver.  20,  where  lie  puts  the  discourse  which  fol- 
lows in  close  connection  with  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve  which  he  has  just  narrated. 
The  truth  of  the  second  is  disputed  by  those  who  think  that  in  consequence  of  this 
choice  Jesus  spoke  two  discourses — one  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain,  addressed 
specially  to  His  disciples — the  second  lower  down  (m  level  ground,  addressed  to  the 
multitude  :  the  former,  which  was  of  a  more  private  character,  being  that  of  Mat- 


<iiAP.    VI.  :  12-1!).  189 

thew  ;  the  latter,  of  a  more  popular  aim,  that  of  Luke*  They  rely  on  the  differcuces 
in  substance  and  form  between  the  two  discourses  in  our  two  Gospels.  In  regard  to 
the  substance,  the  essential  matter  in  the  discourse  of  Matthew,  the  opposition  be- 
tween tlic  righteousness  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  true  righteousness  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  is  not  found  at  all  in  Luke.  As  to  the  form,  in  Matthew  Jesus  ascends 
the  mountain  to  preach  it,  while  in  Luke  He  comes  down,  after  having  spent  the 
night  on  the  summit.  Farther,  there  He  is  seated  (KaOicrai-roS  aurov,  !Matt.  5:1);  here 
He  appears  to  be  standing  {iaT?/,  Luke  6  :  IT).  Notwithstanding  these  reasons,  we 
cannot  admit  that  there  were  two  distinct  discourses  They  buth  begin  in  the  same 
way,  with  the  beatitudes  ;  they  both  treat  of  the  same  subject,  the  righteousness  of 
the  kingdom  of  God — with  this  shade  of  diHerence,  thaltiie  essence  of  this  righteous- 
ness, in  i'Matlliew,  is  spirituality  :  in  Lida-,  tliarily.  They  both  have  tiie  same  con- 
clusion, the  parable  of  the  two  buildings.  This  resemblance  in  the  plan  of  the  dis- 
course is  so  great  that  it  appears  to  us  decidedly  to  take  precedence  of  the  second- 
ary diffetences.  As  to  the  differences  of  form,  it  should  be  observed  that  Luke's  ex- 
pression, IttI  Tonov  TTfrUvoiJ,  liierally,  on  a  level  jilace,  denotes  a  flat  place  on  the 
mounlaiu.  To  denote  the  plain,  Luke  would  have  said,  t-t  -nediov.  Luke's  expres- 
sion is  not,  therefore,  contradictory  to  Matthew's.  Tlie  latter,  as  usual,  giving  a 
summary  nan  alive,  lells  us  that  Jesus  preached  this  time  on  the  mountain,  in 
opposition  to  the  plain,  the  seaside  that  is,  where  He  usually  preached  ;  while  Luke, 
who  dcsciil)es  in  detail  all  the  circumstances  of  this  meim  lable  day,  begins  by  men- 
tioning ihe  night  which  Jesus  spent  alone  on  the  (summit  of  the  mounlain  ;  next  he 
tells  how  He  descended  to  a  level  place  situated  on  the  mountain  side,  where  He 
stayed  to  speak  to  the  people.  This  plateau  was  still  the  mountain  in  Matthew's 
sense.     On  the  relation  cf  iarri  (Luke)  to  He  sat  down  (Matthew),  see  on  ver.  17. 

In  or  !er  to  understand  the  Sermon  on  the  Myunt,  it  is  necessary  to  form  a  correct 
view  of  the  historical  ciicumstances  which  were  the  occasion  of  it  ;  for  this  sermon 
is  something  more  than  an  important  piece  of  instruction  delivered  by  Jesus  ;  it  is 
one  (.f  the  decisive  acts  of  His  ministry.  We  have  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tion the  t-yraptoms  of  a  growing  luplure  between  Jesus  and  the  hierarchical  part}' 
(veis.  14,  17,  21-23  ;  G  :  1  fcq  ).  The  bold  attitude  which  Jesus  assumes  toward  this 
paity,  chidlenging  Its  hostility  by  calling  a  publican,  by  emphasizing  in  His  teaching 
the  antithesis  between  the  old  and  new  order  of  things,  and  by  openly  braving  their 
Sabbatarian  prejudices — all  this  enables  us  to  see  that  a  crisis  in  the  development  of 
His  Work  has  arrived.  It  is  an  exactly  corresponding  state  of  things  for  Galilee  to 
that  which  was  brought  about  in  Juda;a  after  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  on  the 
Sabbath  (John  5).  The  choice  of  the  Twelve  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  are  thcj 
result  and  the  solution  of  this  critical  situation.  Up  to  this  time  Jesus  had  been  salih 
fied  with  gathering  converts  about  Ilim,  calling  some  of  them  to  accompany  Iliml 
habitually  as  disciples.  Now  He  saw  that  the  moment  was  come  to  give  His  work  a 
more  definite  form,  and  to  orgaiuze  His  adherents.  The  hostile  army  is  preparing: 
for  the  attack  ;  it  is  time  to  concentrate  His  own  forces;  and  conse(}iicutly  He  be- 
gins, if  I  may  venture  to  say  so,  by  drawing  up  His  list  of  officers.  The  choosing  of 
Iho  Twelve  is  the  first  constitutive  act  accomplished  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  first 
measure,  and  substantially  (with  the  sacraments)  the  only  measure,  of  organization 

*  Lange,  "  Lehcn  Jesu."  "book  ii.  pp.  567-570.     St.  Augustine  and  Ihe  greater 
part  of  the  Latin  Fathers  of  the  Church  hold  that  there  were  two  discourses. 


190  COMMKXTAUY    ON'    ST.   ].rKE, 

■which  He  ever  took.  It  sufficed  Him,  siuce  the  college  of  the  Twelve,  once  consti- 
tuted, was  ia  its  turn  to  take  what  further  measures  might  be  required  when  the  time 
came  for  Ihcm.  The  number  12  was  significant.  Jesus  set  up  in  their  persons  the 
twelve  patriarchs  of  a  new  people  of  God,  a  spiritual  Israel,  that  was  to  be  substituted 
for  the  old.  Twelve  new  tribes  were  to  arise  at  their  word  and  form  the  hcily 
humanity  which  Jesus  came  to  install  in  the  earth.  An  act  more  expressly  Messianic 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  ;  and  the  criticism  which  maintains  that  it  was  only  at 
Caesarea-Philippi,  and  at  the  instigation  of  Peter,  that  Jesus  decisively  accepted  the 
part  of  Messiah,  must  begin  by  effacing  from  history  the  chousing  of  the  Twelve, 
with  its  manifest  signification.  Further,  this  act  is  the  beginning  of  the  di- 
vorce between  Jesus  and  the  ancient  people  of  God.  The  Lord  does  not  begin 
to  frame  a  new  Israel  until  He  sees  the  necessity  of  breaking  with  the 
old.  He  has  labored  in  vain  to  transform  ;  nothing  now  remains  but  to  substi- 
tute. This  attentive  crowd  which  surrounds  Him  on  the  mountain  is  the  nucleus  of 
the  new  people  ;  this  discourse  which  He  addresses  to  them  is  the  promulgation  of 
the  new  law  by  which  they  are  to  be  governed  ;  this  moment  is  the  solemn  inaugura- 
tion of  the  people  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  earth — of  that  people  Avhich.  by  means  of 
individual  conversions,  is  eventually  to  absorb  into  itself  all  that  belongs  to  God 
among  all  other  peoples.  Hence  this  discourse  has  a  decidedly  inaugural  character 
— a  character  which,  whatever  Weizsacker  *  may  say  about  it,  belongs  no  less  to  its 
form  in  Luke  than  to  its  form  in  Matthew.  In  the  latter,  Jesus  addresses  Himself,  if 
you  will  to  the  apostles,  but  as  representing  the  entire  new  Israel.  In  Luke,  He 
rather  speaks,  if  you  will,  to  the  new  Israel,  but  as  personified  in  the  person  of  the 
apostles.  In  reality  this  makes  no  difference.  The  distinction  between  apostles  and 
believeis  is  nowhere  clearly  asserted.  Every  believer  is  to  be  the  salt  of  the  earth, 
the  lifjht  of  the  icorld  (Matthew)  ;  every  apostle  is  to  be  one  of  those  'poor,  hmniiry, 
weepinrj,  persecuted  ones  of  which  the  new  people  is  to  he  composed  (Luke).  Just  as, 
at  Sinai,  Jehovah  makes  no  distinction  between  priests  and  people,  so  it  is  His  people, 
with  all  the  constitutive  tlements  of  their  life,  whose  appearance  Jesus  hails,  whose 
new  character  He  portrays,  and  whose  future  action  on  the  world  He  proclaims. 
Further,  lie  felt  most  deeply  the  importance  of  this  moment,  and  prepared  Himself 
f  jr  it  by  a  whole  night  of  meditation  and  prayer.  The  expressions  of  Luke  upon  this 
point  (ver.  12)  have,  as  we  shall  see,  quite  a  special  character. 

The  Sermon  on  the  M.tunt  occupies  quite  a  different  place  in  Matthew  to  that 
which  it  holds  in  Luke.  That  evangelist  has  made  it  the  opening  of  the  Galdean 
ministry,  and  he  places  it,  therefore,  immediately  after  the  call  of  the  four  first  dis- 
ciples. Historically  speaking,  this  position  is  a  manifest  anachronism  How.  at  the 
vrry  commencement  of  His  work,  could  Jesns  speak  of  persecutions  for  His  name,  as 
He  does.  Matt.  5  :  10,  11,  or  feel  it  necessary  to  justify  Himself  against  the  charge  of 
destroying  the  law  (ver.  17).  and  to  give  a  solemn  warning  to  false  disciples 
(7  :  21-23)  ?  The  position  of  the  Sermnn  on  the  Mount  in  ]yiatthew  is  only  to  be  un- 
derstood from  the  systematic  point  of  view  from  which  this  evangelist  wrote.  There 
Avas  no  better  way  in  which  the  author  could  show  1he]Messiaiiic  dignity  of  Jesus  than 
by  opening  the  history  of  His  ministry  with  this  discourse,  in  which  was  laid  down 
the  basis  of  that  spiritual  kingdom  which  the  Messiah  came  to  found.  If  the  collec- 
tion of  the  discourses  composed  by  Matthew,  of  which  Papias  speaks,  really  existed, 

*  "  Untersuchungcn  Uber  die  evang.  Gesch."  pp.  45  and  46,  note. 


THAI'.    VI.  :  \'2-\\K  191 

and  served  as  n  foundation  for  our  Gospel,  the  position  which  this  discourse  occupies 
in  the  latter  is  fully  accounted  for. 

As  to  Mark,  we  can  easily  perceive  (he  precise  point  in  his  sketch  where  the  Ser- 
mon on  th(!  Blount  should  come  in  (IJ  :  1^  el  scq.).  But  the  discourse  itself  is  wanting;, 
douhlless  because  it  was  no  part  of  his  design  to  give  it  to  his  readers.  Mark's  nar- 
rative is  nevertheless  iinp.>rtant,  in  that  it  substantiates  that  of  Luke,  and  conlirnis 
Ihe  siirnificance  alliibuled  by  this  evangelist  to  the  act  of  the  choosing  of  the 
Twelve.  Tjiis  compaiisou  with  the  two  other  Syn.  shows  how  well  Luke  under- 
stood the  development  of  tlu;  work  of  Jesus,  and  the  superior  chronological  skill  with 
which  he  corn[)ileil  his  narrative  {KaOe^rj;  ypurpai,  1  :  y). 

Gess  has  replieil  to  our  objections  against  the  chronnlngical  accuracy  of  Matthew's 
narrative  [Litter.  Aiizviijer  of  Audrea?,  Septeinl)er,  1871)  in  liie  following  manner  : 
Till'  mention  of  the  persecutions  might  refer  to  the  fact  mentioned  John  4  :  1,  and 
to  the  fate  of  John  the  Baptist  :  the  charge  of  undermining  the  law  had  aiieady  i)eeu 
made  in  Juda?a  (cotnp.  Jolm  5) ;  the  false  disciples  might  iiave  been  imitalois  of  the 
man  who  wrought  cures  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (Luke  1)  :  4'J  ;  Mark  1)  :  iJb),  although  of 
a  less  pure  chaiacter.  And,  in  any  case,  the  time  of  Ihe  discourse  indicated  by  Luke 
does  not  dili"er  sensibly  from  that  at  whieh  3Iatthew  places  it.  But  neither  the  hos- 
tility whifli  Jesus  had  met  with  in  Judrea,  nor  the  accnsalions  which  had  been  laid 
against  Ilini  there,  could  have  induced  Hun  to  speak  as  He  did  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
]\Ii)unl,  unless  some  similar  events,  such  as  those  which  Si.  Luke  has  alicady  related, 
luid  taken  place  in  Ih's  province,  and  within  Ih';  knowledge  of  tlie  peoi)le.  It  is  ([uite 
p)si?il)le  that  the  fads  related  by  Luke  di>  not  prove  any  very  great  interval  between 
the  time  to  which  he  assigns  tins  discourse  and  the  beginning  of  the  Galilean  ministry, 
at  which  Matthew  places  it.  But  they  serve  at  least  as  a  piepaiation  for  Jt,  and  give 
it  lust  that  historical  foundation  which  it  needs,  Avhile  in  M;itthew  j».  occurs  ex 
abnipto,  and  wilboul  any  historical  framework.  The  fact  Hint  the  call  of  Mallhew 
is  placed  in  the  tiist  Gospel  (!)  :  9)  after  the  Sf^rmon  on  the  i\Inunt.  which  supposes 
tills  call  alieady  accomplished  (Ltdie  G  :  13  et  neq.),  woul.l  be  sufficient,  if  necessary 
to  show  that  this  discourse  is  detached,  iu  tuis  Gospel,  fiom  its  true  historical 
context. 

1st.  Vers.  1^-19.  Choosing  of  the  Twelve.— Yar.  12.*  Luke  has  already  brought 
before  us  more  than  once  the  need  of  prayer,  which  so  often  drew  Jesus  away  into 
solitude  [i  :  42,  5  :  6).  But  the  expressions  he  inakes  use  of  here  are  intended  to  carry 
special  weight.  AiawKrepeveiv,  to  pass  the  night  in  watching,  is  a  word  rarely  used 
in  Greek,  and  which  iu  all  the  N.  T.  is  only  found  here.  The  choice  of  this  unusual 
term,  as  well  as  the  analytical  form  (the  imperf.  with  the  participle),  express  the  per- 
severing energy  of  this  vigil.  The  term  -rzooatyxii  rov  Oeov.  literally,  prayer  of  God,  is 
also  an  unique  expression  in  the  N.  T.  It  does  not  denote  any  special  re(iuest,  but  a 
stale  of  rapt  contemplation  of  God's  presence,  a  prayer  arising  out  of  the  most  pro- 
found communion  with  Him.  The  development  of  the  work  of  Jesus  having  now 
reached  a  critical  point,  during  this  night  He  laid  it  before  God,  and  took  counsel 
with  Ilim.  The  choosing  of  the  twelve  apostles  was  the  fruit  of  this  lengthened 
season  of  prayer  ;  iu  that  higher  light  in  which  Jesus  stood,  it  appeared  the  only 
measure  answering  to  the  exigencies  of  the  present  situation.  The  reading  i^t/.Oeiv  is 
a  correciioa  of  the  Alexandiian  purists  for  e^fyAOev,  which,  after  hykvETo,  offended  the 
Greek  ear. 

Vers.    13-17a.f    In  the  execution,   as  in  the  choice,  of  (his  important  measure, 

*  !*   A.  B.  D.  L.,  f^fAOf/v  avTov  instead  of  tiJ]?fjEv. 

t  Ver.  14.  i*.  B.  I).  K.  L.  A.  n.  20  Mnn.  Syi"^''.  It""i.  read  kol  before  UkuSdv. 
ik.  B.  D.  L.  Syr"'''.  Il"'''i.  read  kui  before  <i>i>iT77Tov.     Ver.  lo.  The  same,  or  ucaily 


192  COMMKNTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Jesus  no  doubt  submiUed  Himself  to  divine  direction.  His  numerous  disciples  spcut 
the  night  not  far  from  tlie  mountain-top  to  which  He  withdrew.  During  tliis 
lenglliened  communion,  He  presented  them  all,  one  by  one,  to  Hisfallier  ;  au'l  God's 
linger  pointed  out  tliose  to  whom  He  was  to  intiust  tlie  salvation  of  the  world. 
"Wlien  at  last  all  had  been  made  perfectly  clear,  toward  morning  He  called  them  to 
Him.  and  made  the  selection  which  had  thus  been  i)rearranged.  The  Kai,  also,  indi- 
ciUs  that  the  title  proceeded  from  Jesus,  as  well  as  the  commission.  Schleiermacher 
iliought  that  this  nomination  was  made  simply  in  reference  to  the  following  discourse, 
of  which  these  twelve  were  to  be  the  official  hearers,  and  that  the  name  apostles  (ver. 
I'd,  "  whom  He  also  named  apostles")  might  have  been  given  them  on  some  other 
occasion,  either  i)revious  or  subsequent.  The  iimilur  expiesiinu  relative  to  Peter, 
ver.  1-i,  might  favor  this  latter  opinion.  Nevertheless,  it  is  natural  to  su[)pose  that 
He  entitled  them  apostles  when  He  liist  distinguished  them  from  the  rest  of  the  dis- 
ciples, just  as  He  gave  Simon  the  surname  Peter  when  He  met  him  for  the  first  time 
(Jahn  1).  And  if  these  twelve  men  had  been  chosen  to  attend  Jesus  officially  simply 
on  this  occasion,  they  would  not  be  found  the  same  in  all  the  catalogues  of  apostles. 
The  fact  of  this  choice  is  expressly  confirmed  by  Mark  (y  :  l;d.  14),  and  indirectly  by 
John  (^6  •,  7U) :  "Have  not  I  chosen  you  twelve  {e^s^E^nurjijT'  The  function  of  the 
aposllcs  has  often  been  reduced  to  that  of  simple  witni'sses.  But  this  very  title  of 
apostles,  or  ambassadors,  expresses  nnre,  comp.  2  Cor.  5  :  20.  "  We  are  ambassadors 
for  Christ  .  .  .  and  we  beseech  you  to  be  reconciled  to  God,"  W lien  Jesus  says, 
"  I  piay  for  them  who  shall  believe  on  me  througii  their  word,"  the  expression  their 
loord  evident!}'  embraces  more  than  the  simple  narration  of  the  facts  about  Jesus  and 
His  woiks.  The  marked  prominence  which  Ltike,  together  with  Jlark,  gives  to  the 
choosing  of  the  Twelve,  is  the  best  refutation  of  the  unfair  criticism  which  affects  to 
discover  throughout  his  work  indications  of  a  design  to  depreciate  them. 

According  to  Keim  (t.  ii.  p.  yOo),  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  must  have  taken  place 
latpr  on,  at  the  time  of  their  first  mission,  9  :'[  et  seq.  It  is  then,  in  ftict,  that  Mat- 
thew gives  the  catalogue,  10  : 1  et  seq.  His  idea  is  that  Luke  imagined  this  entire 
scene  on  the  mountain  in  order  to  refer  the  choosing  of  the  apostles  to  as  early  a 
period  as  possible,  and  thus  give  a  double  and  triple  consecration  to  their  authority, 
and  that  tluis  far  Mark  f(jllowed  him.  But  Luke,  he  believes,  went  much  further 
still.  Wantinu' to  ])ut  some  discrmise  into  the  nioulh  of  Jesus  on  this  occasion,  he 
availed  himself  for  this  purpose  of  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  though  it  was  a 
discourse  which  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  occasion.  ]\Iaik,  however,  lejected 
this  amplification,  but  with  the  serious  defect  of  not  being  able  to  assign  anj^  adequate 
reas)n  fjr  the  choosing  of  the  apostles  at  this  time.  Thus  far  Keim.  But,  1.  The 
preface  to  the  account  of  the  first  apostolic  mission  in  Matthew  (10  : 1),  "  and  havnig 
called  to  Him  the  twelve  disciples,  He  gave  them  .  .  ."  does  away  with  the  idea 
of  their  having  been  chosen  just  at  this  time,  and  implies  that  Ihi'^  event  had  already 
taken  place.  According  to  ^Matthew  himself,  the  college  of  the  Twelve  is  already  in 
existence;  Jesus  calls  them  to  set  them  to  active  service.  2.  A  scene  described  in 
such  solemn  terms  as  that  of  Luke  (.Jesus  spending  a  night  in  prayer  to  God),  cannot 
be  an  invention  on  his  part,  consistently  with  the  slig-litest  pretensions  to  good  faith. 
3.  The  narrative  of  Mark  is  an  indisputable  confirmation  of  Luke's  ;  for  it  is  inde- 
penilent  of  it,  as  a[)pears  from  the  way,  so  completely  his  own,  in  which  he  defines 
the  object  of  choosing  the  apnstles.  4,  AVe  have  seen  how  exactly  this  measure  was 
adapted  to  that  stage  of  development  which  tlie  work  of  Jesus  had  now  reached.  5. 
Does  not  rationalistic  criticism  condemn  itself,  by  attributing  to  Luke  here  the  entire 

so  :  Kai  before  VlarOaiov  and  IukuRov.  Ver.  IG.  The  same,  or  nearl}''  so  :  nm  before 
\ov6ai>,     \k.  B.  D.  L.,   laKapiuO  insteiid  of  laKapiurriv.    \^.  B.  L.  It.  omit  nai  after  of. 


<1IAI'.    VI.  :  l-i    l!l.  VJ'6 

invention  of  a  scene  designi-rl  to  confer  the  most  solemn  cousecralion  on  the  apostolic 
authority  of  tlie  Twelve,  and  by  assertinsr  elsewhere  that  this  same  Luke  lahors  to 
depreciate  them  (the  Tiibuiiieu  school,  and,  Ij  a  certain  cxieut,  Keini  himself  ;  see 
on  U  .  1)  ? 

The  four  catalogues  of  apostles  (Matt.  10  -.2  H  seq.  ;  M  rk  3  :  IG  f<  seq.  ;  Luke  G  ; 
and  Acts  1  :  lii)  piestnt  three  marks  of  rcsemhlauce  :  1st.  They  contain  the  same 
names,  with  the  exception  of  Jude  the  son  of  James,  for  whom  in  Mark  Thaddteus  is 
substituted,  and  in  ^Matthew  Lcbb;eus,  suruamed  Thaddani.s  (according  to  the  received 
reading),  Thaddieus  (according  to  5*.  B.  ),  Lebbieus  (according  to  I).).  2d.  These 
twelve  arc  distribute  1  in  the  four  lists  into  three  groups  of  four  each,  and  no  indi- 
vidual of  either  of  tliese  groups  is  transfirred  to  another.  We  juay  conclude  from  Ihii 
that  lbs  apostolical  college  consisted  of  three  concentric  circles,  of  which  the  inner- 
most was  in  the  closest  relations  with  Jesus.  M.  The  same  three  apostles  are  found 
at  the  head  of  each  quaternion,  Peter,  Philip,  and  James.  Besides  this  quaternary 
division,  Matthew  and  Luke  indicate  a  division  into  pairs,  at  least  (according  to  the 
received  reading,  in  Luke,  and  certainly  in  Matthew)  for  the  last  eight  apostles.  In 
the  Acts,  the  first  four  apostles  are  connected  with  each  other  b}'  Kai ;  the  remaining 
eight  are  grouped  in  pairs. 

Luke  places  at  the  head  of  them  the  two  brothers,  Simon  and  Andrew,  with  whom 
Jesus  became  acquainted  while  they  were  with  the  Forerunner  (John  1).  At  the  first 
glance,  Jesus  had  discerned  that  power  of  taking  the  lead,  that  promptness  of  view 
and  action,  which  distinguislied  Peter.  He  pointed  him  out  at  the  time  by  the  sur- 
name tS^,  in  Aranuean  XCr«  Ceplms  (properly  a  mn^s  of  rock),  as  he  on  whom  IIo 
would  found  the  edifice  of  His  Church.  If  the  character  of  Peter  was  weak  and  un- 
stable, he  was  none  the  less  for  that  the  bold  confessor  on  whose  testimony  the 
Cuurch  was  erected  in  Israel  and  am^ng  the  heathen  (Acts  2  and  10).  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  text  to  indicate  that  this  surname  was  given  to  Peter  at  this  time.  The 
aor.  uui1/xar}£  indicates  the  act  siniph-,  without  reference  to  time.  The  kuI  merely 
serves  toexpiess  the  identity  of  the  person  (ver.  10).  Andrew  was  one  of  the  first 
believers.  At  the  time  when  Jesus  chose  tlie  Twelve,  he  was  no  doubt  appointed  at 
the  same  time  as  Peter  ;  but  he  gradua  ly  falls  below  James  and  John,  to  whom  be 
ajjpears  to  have  been  inferior  ;  he  is  placed  after  them  in  Mark  and  in  the  Acts.  The 
order  followed  by  Luke  indicr^tes  a  very  primitive  source.  Andrew  is  very  often 
found  associated  with  Pliilip  (John  G  :  7-0,  12:  21,  22).  In  their  ordinary  life  be 
formed  the  link  between  the  first  and  the  second  group,  at  the  head  of  which  was 
Philip. 

The  second  pair  of  the  first  group  is  formed  by  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  James 
and  John.  Mark  supplies  (3  :  17)  a  detail  respecting  them  which  is  full  of  interest  : 
Jesus  had  surnamed  them  .wns  of  thunder.  This  surname  would  have  been  offensive 
liad  it  expressed  a  fault  ;  it  denoted,  therefore,  rather  the  ardent  zeal  of  these  two 
brothers  in  the  cause  of  Jesus,  and  their  exalted  affection  for  His  person.  This  feel- 
ing which  burned  within  their  hearts,  came  forth  in  sudden  flashes  like  lightning  from 
the  cloud.     John  1  :  42  *  contains  a  delicate  trace  of   the  calling  of   James  ;  this, 

*  Prr)l)ably  it  is  ver.  41  that  is  meant.  M.  Godet,  following  the  usual  opinion  that 
the  unnamed  disciple  of  ver.  40  is  John,  the  writerof  the  Gospel,  seems  to  imderstand 
tlie  next  verse  as  intimating  that  Andrew  found  his  bi-oiher  Simon  before  John 
found  his  brother  James.  Alford's  view  is,  that  both  disciples  (John  and  Andrew) 
went  to  seek  Simon,  but  that  Andrew  found  him  first. — Tk.\nslator. 


VJ4:  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LVKK. 

therefore,  must  have  taken  place  while  he  was  with  John  the  Baptist,  immediately 
after  that  of  his  brother.  James  was  the  first  martyr  from  the  number  of  the  apos^lles 
(Acts  13).  This  fact  is  only  to  be  explained  by  the  great  influence  which  he  exerted 
after  Pentecost.  John  was  the  personal  friend  of  Jesus,  who  doubtless  felt  Himself 
belter  understood  by  him  than  by  any  of  the  others.  While  the  other  disciples  were 
especially  impressed  by  His  miracles,  and  stored  up  His  moral  teaching,  John,  at- 
tiacted  rather  by  His  person,  treasur-ed  up  in  his  heart  those  sayirrgs  in  which  Jesus 
unfolded  His  consciousness  of  Himself.  Wreseler  has  tried  to  prove  that  these  two 
brothers  were  first-cousins  of  Jesus,  by  Salome,  their  mother,  wlro  would  have  been 
the  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Comp.  31att.  27  :  5,  G,  Mark  15  :  40,  with  John  19  :  25. 
But  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  John  is  hardly  natural. 

The  second  quaternion,  which  no  doubt  comprised  natures  of  a  second  or'der, 
contained  also  two  pairs.  The  first  consists,  in  all  three  Gospels,  of  Philip  and  Bar- 
tholomew. In  the  Acts,  Philip  is  associated  with  Thomas.  Philip  was  the  fiflh  be- 
liever (John  1)  ;  he  was  originally  from  Bethsaida,  as  were  also  the  pi-eceding  fimr. 
J  ;hn  C)  :5  seems  to  show  that  Jesus  was  cu  terms  of  special  cordiality  with  him.  The 
name  Bartiiolomew  signifies  son  of  Tolmai ;  it  was  therefore  only  a  surname.  It  has 
long  been  supposeil  that  the  true  name  of  this  aposile  was  Nathanael.  John  21  ;  2, 
where  Nathanael  is  named  among  a  string  of  apostles,  proves  unquestionably  that  he 
Avas  one  of  the  Twelve.  Since,  according  to  John  1,  he  had  been  drawn  to  Jesus  by 
Philip,  it  is  natural  that  he  should  be  associated  with  him  in  the  catalogues  of  the 
apostles. 

j\latthew  and  Thomas  form  the  second  pair  of  the  second  grorrp  in  the  three  Syn., 
while  in  the  Acts  Matthew  is  associated  with  Bartholomew.  One  remarkable  circum- 
stance, all  the  more  significant  that  it  might  easily  pass  unperceived,  is  this,  that 
wiiile  in  Murk  and  Luke  Matthew  is  placed  ilrstof  the  pair,  in  our  first  Gospel  he  oc- 
cupies the  sec(md  place.  Further,  in  this  Gospel  also,  the  epithet  tJie  publican  is  add- 
ed to  his  name,  which  is  wanting  ia  the  two  others.  Are  not  these  indications  of  a 
personal  pailicipation,  more  or  less  direct,  of  the  Apostle  Matthew  in  the  composiliim 
of  the  first  Gospd  ?  Having  been  formerly  a  toll-collector,  Matthew  must  have  been 
more  accustomed  to  the  use  of  the  pen  than  his  colleagues..  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  he  should  be  the  first  among  them  who  felt  called  to  put  into  writing 
the  history  and  instructions  of  Jesus.  The  account  of  his  calling  irirplies  that  he 
possessed  unirsrral  energy,  deeision,  and  strength  of  laith.  Per-haps  it  was  for  that 
reason  Jesrrs  saw  fit  to  associate  hini  with  Thomas,  a  man  of  scruples  and  doubts. 
The  name  of  the  latter  signifies  a  twin.  The  circumstances  of  his  call  are  unknown. 
He  was  doubtless  connected  with  Jesus  first  of  all  as  a  simple  disciple,  and  then  his 
terious  character  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Alasler.  If  the  incident  9  :  59,  60  was 
net  placed  so  long  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  might  be  tempted  with  some 
writers  to. apply  it. to  Thouras. 

The  third  quaternion  contains  the  least  striking  chai'acters  in  the  number  of  the 
Twelve.  All  thei^e  mm,  however,  not  excepting  Judas  Iscariot,  have  had  their  share 
in  the  fulfilment  of  the  apostolic  task,  the  transmission  of  the  holy  figure  of  the  Chris% 
to  the  Church  through  all  time.  The  stream  of  oral  tradition  was  formed  by  the 
affluents  of  all  these  sources  together.  The  last  pair  comprises  here,  as  in  the  Acts, 
James  the  son  of  Alphfeus,  and  Simon  the  Zealot.  But  the  distribution  is  different  in 
the  two  other  Syn.  It  has  been  generallj^  allowed  since  the  fourth  century  that  this 
James  is  the  peisan  so  often  mentioned,  in  the  A(;ls  and  the  Galatians,  as  the  brother 


c'iiAi\    VI.  :  i;-ll).  ]0o 

of  the  Lord,  llie  first  head  of  tlio  Hock  r.t  Jcriisalcni.  This  identity  is  made  out,  (1) 
by  applying  to  hioi  tlie  passago  j\Iark  1.")  :  40.  accordiug  to  whicjh  his  suriiaine  would 
have  been  the  less  or  the  youiujer  (relalirely  to  James  the  son  of  Zebedce),  and  his 
mother  would  have  been  a  ^l;uy,  whom,  aecording  to  John  10  :  2o,  we  should  have 
to  regard  as  a  sister  (probabl}'  sister-in-law)  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  ;  (2)  by  identify- 
ing the  name  of  his  father  Alphirus  with  the  name  Clopas  OCTTl  =  K/un-d?),  which 
was  borne,  according  to  Ilegesippus,  by  a  brother  of  Joseph  ;  (3)  by  taking  the  term 
brother  in  the  sense  of  cousin  (cf  the  Lord).  But  this  hypothesis  cannot,  in  our  judg- 
ment, be  maintained  :  (1)  The  word  mhAipui,  brother,  used  as  it  is  by  the  side  of  fi'/rr/p, 
mother  ('*  tiie  mother  and  brethren  of  Jesus"),  can  only  signify  brother  in  the  proper 
sense.  The  example  oltcn  cited.  Gen.  lo  :  8,  when  Abraham  says  to  Lot,  "  "Wo  are 
brethren,"  is  not  parallel.  (2)  John  says  positively  (7  ••  o)  that  the  brethren  of  Jesus 
did  not  believe  on  Him.  and  this  long  after  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  (John  6  :  70). 
This  is  confirmed  by  Luke  8  -.19  et  seq.  ;  comp.  with  ]\[ark  13  :  20-;JJ5.  One  of  them 
could  not,  therefore,  be  found  among  His  apostles.  A  comparison  of  all  the  passages 
leads  us  to  distinguish,  as  is  generally  done  at  the  present  day,  three  Jameses  :  the 
first,  the  son  of  Zebedee  (ver.  14)  ;  the  second,  the  son  of  AlphjBus  indicated  here, 
whom  there  is  nothing  to  present  our  identifj'ing  with  James  the  less,  the  son  of 
Clopas  and  Mary,  and  regarding  him  as  the  lirst-cousin  of  Jesus  ;  the  third,  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,  not  a  believer  before  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  alterward  first 
bishop  of  the  flock  at  Jerusalem, 

The  surname  Zxilot,  given  to  Simon,  is  probably  a  translation  of  the  adj.  kaniia 
(in  the  Talmud,  kunanil),  zealous.  If  this  be  correct,  this  apostle  belonged  to  that 
fanatical  partj'  Avhich  brought  about  the  ruin  of  the  people,  hy  leading  them  into 
war  against  the  Konians.  This  sense  corresponds  with  the  epithet  Kavaviriji,  which 
is  applied  to  him  in  the  Byz.  reading  of  3Iatthew  and  Mark,  confirmed  here  by  the 
authority  of  the  Sinai t.  This  name  is  simply  the  Hebrew  term,  translated  by  Luke, 
and  Hellenized  bj' ^latthew  and  Mark.  The  reading  Y^avavalo^  in  some  Ale.K.  may 
signify  either  Cnnaanite  or  citizen  of  Cana.  This  second  etymology  is  not  very 
probable.  The  first  would  be  more  so,  if  in  Matt.  15  :  23  this  word,  in  the  sense  cf 
Canaanite,  were  not  written  with  an  X  instead  of  a  K.  Luke  has  therefore  given  the 
precise  meaning  of  the  Arama?an  term  employed  in  the  document  of  which  he  availed 
himself  (Keim,  t.  ii.  p.  319). 

The  liist  pair  comprises  the  two  Judes.  There  were  in  fact  two  men  of  this  name 
in  the  apostolic  college,  although  ]\Iatthew  and  Mark  mention  but  one,  Judas  Iscariot. 
This  is  very  clear  from  John  14.22  •  "Judas,  not  Iscariot,  saith  to  Him."  Tiie 
names  Lebbaeus  and  Thaddajus,  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  are  therefore  surnames,  de- 
rived, the  former  from  2/.  heaii,  the  latter  either  from  Hp,  mamma,  or  from  ^"^j 
poteiis.  The  name  Thaddai  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Talmud.  These  sur- 
names were  probably  the  names  by  which  they  were  usually  desiguated  in  the 
Church.  The  genitive  'IokuSov  nmst,  according  to  usage,  signify  sou  of  James  ;  this 
was  to  distinguish  this  Judas  from  the  next.  With  the  desire  to  make  this  apostle 
also  a  cousin  of  Jesus,  the  phrase  has  frequenth'  been  translated  brother  of  James, 
that  is  to  say,  of  the  son  of  Aliiha'us,  mentioned  in  ver.  15.  But  there  is  no  instance 
of  the  genitive  being  used  in  this  sense.  In  the  14th  verse,  Luke  himself  thought 
it  necessary  to  use  the  full  expression,  rnv  a(h?.(;)oi>  avrov.  And  would  not  the 
two  other  Syn.,  who  join  Lebba?U3  immediately  to  James,  have  indicated  this 
relationship  ? 


19G  COMMEXTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

As  there  was  a  town  called  Kerijntli  in  Jutlsca,  it  is  probable  that  lliename  Iscariot 
si.2;nifies  a  man  vf  Kerijotli  (at  the  present  day  Kuiiul),  toward  the  northern  boundary 
of  Judtea.  The  objections  which  De  Wette  lias  raised  against  this  elymology  are 
without  force.  He  proposes,  with  Lightfoot,  the  etymology  ascara,  stra)igulation. 
Ilengstenberg  prefers  isch  sdieker,  man  of  falsehood,  from  which  it  would  follow  that 
this  surname  was  given  post  eventum.  These  etymologies  are  all  the  more  untenable, 
that  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  according  to  the  most  probable  reading  ('Icr/coptcjrou,  G  :  71 
and  elsewhere),  this  surname  Iscariot  mu^t  have  been  originally  that  ot  the  father  of 
Judas.  The  character  of  this  man  appears  to  have  been  cold,  reserved,  and  calcula- 
ting. He  ■rt'as  so  very  reserved  that,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  John,  none  of 
the  disciples  guessed  his  secret  hatred.  In  the  coolness  of  his  audacity,  he  ventured 
to  cope  with  Jesus  Himself  (John  12  :  4,  5).  "With  what  motive  did  Jesus  clioose  a 
man  of  this  character  ?  He  had  spontaneously  joined  himself,  as  did  so  many  others, 
to  the  number  of  His  disciples  ;  there  was  therefore  a  germ  of  faith  in  him,  and  per- 
haps, at  the  outset,  an  ardent  zeal  for  the  cause  of  Jesus.  But  there  also  existed  in 
him,  as  in  all  the  otheis,  the  selfish  views  and  amhilious  aspirations  which  were 
almost  inseparable  from  the  form  which  the  Messianic  hope  had  taken,  until  Jesus 
purified  it  from  this  alloy.  In  the  case  of  Judas,  as  of  all  the  nthers,  it  was  a  ques- 
tion which  of  the  two  ccnflicting  principles  wcmld  prevail  in  his  heart  :  whether  faith, 
and  through  this  the  t^anctifying  power  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  or  pride,  and  thereby 
the  unbelief  which  could  not  fail  eventually  to  result  from  it.  This  was,  for  Judas, 
a  question  of  moral  liberty.  As  for  Jesus,  He  was  bound  to  submit  in  respect  to 
lum,  as  in  respect  to  all  the  others,  to  God's  plan.  On  the  one  hand.  He  might  cer- 
tainly hope,  by  admitting  Judas  into  the  number  of  His  apostles,  to  succeed  in  purify- 
ing his  heart,  while  by  setting  him  aside  He  nughfc  irritate  him  and  estrange  him  for- 
ever. On  the  other  hand.  He  certainly  saw  through  him  sufficiently  well  to  perceive 
the  risk  He  ran  in  giving  him  a  place  in  that  inner  circle  which  He  was  about  to  foim 
around  His  person.  We  may  suppose,  therefore,  that,  during  that  long  night  which 
preceded  the  appointment  of  the  Twelve,  this  was  one  of  the  questions  which  en- 
gaged His  deepest  solicitude  ;  and  certainly  it  was  not  until  the  will  of  His  Father 
became  clearly  manifest  that  He  admitted  this  man  into  the  rank  of  the  Twelve,  not- 
withstandmg  His  presentiment  of  the  heavy  cross  He  was  preparing  for  Himself  (John 
G  :  64  and  71).  Still,  even  Judas  fulfilled  his  apostolic  fanction  ;  his  despairing  cry, 
"  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood  !"  is  a  testimony  which  resounds  through  the 
ages  as  loudly  as  the  preaching  of  Peter  at  Pentecost,  or  as  the  cry  of  the  blood  of 
James,  the  first  martyr.  The  ku'l,  also,  after  65  (ver.  16).  omitted  by  some  authorities, 
is  perhaps  :.iken  from  the  two  other  Syn.  If  it  is  authentic,  it  is  intended  to  biing 
out  more  forcibly,  through  the  identity  of  the  person,  the  contradiction  between  his 
mission  and  the  course  he  took. 

Surrounded  hy  the  Twelve  and  the  numerous  circle  of  disciples  from  which  He 
had  chosen  them,  Jesus  descends  from  the  summit  of  the  mountain.  Having  reached 
a  level  place  on  its  slopes,  He  stops  ;  the  crowd  which  was  waiting  for  Him  toward 
the  foot  of  the  mountain,  ascends  and  gathers  about  Him.  TottoS  n-£(5iv6s,  a  level 
place  on  an  inclined  plane.  Thus  the  alleged  contradiction  with  the  expression,  the 
mountain,  in  Matthew  disappears  (see  above).  The  icnr},  He  stood  still,  in  opposition 
to  having  come  doicn,  does  not  in  anyway  denote  the  attitude  of  Jesns  during  the  dis- 
course. There  is  therefore  no  contradiction  between  this  expression  and  Matthew's 
liavimj  sat  doicn.     What  are  we  to  say  of  the  discovery  of  Baur,  who  thinks  that,  by 


ciiAi'.    VI.  :  1?-'^'J.  197 

subslituting7/rtiv'n/7 ''"w  (?"?f»,  vcr.  Ifi,  for  lie  w(Snt  vp,  ^latt.  5  : 1,  Luke  intended  to 
degrade  tlie  Serniun  on  tlie  Mount  !  * 

Vers.  176-11).  f  "We  niiglitinake  oxAoi  n'/f/JoS,  Vie  croird,  the  multitude,  etc.,  so  many 
subjeets  of  to-// :  "He  stood  slill,  along  with  tlie  crowd  .  .  ."  But  it  is  inoio 
natural  to  understand  some  verb  :  "  And  there  was  with  Ilim  the  crowd  .  .  ." 
In  an}'  case,  even  if,  with  the  Alex.,  we  omit  the  nai  before  iOeixnTEvuvrn,  tecre  /taitcd 
(I'er.  18),  we  could  not  think  of  making  these  subst.  nominatives  to  this  last  ve.b  ;  for 
the  crowd  of  disciples,  etc.,  was  not  composed  of  sick  people.  Three  classes  of  per- 
sons, therefore,  surrounded  Jesus  at  this  time  :  occasional  hearers  (the  laultitude  come 
together  from  all  parts),  the  permanent  disciples  (the  crowd  of  disciploi),  and  the 
apostles.  The  first  represent  the  people  in  so  far  as  they  are  called  to  the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  the  second,  the  Church  ;  the  third,  the  ministry  in  the  Church.  The  teim 
crowd,  to  denote  tlie  second,  is  not  too  strong.  Did  not  Jtsus  take  out  of  them,  only 
a  little  while  after,  seventy  disciples  (10  : 1)  ?  If,  at  the  18th  verse,  we  read  and  be- 
fore tJiey  were  healed,  the  idea  of  healing  is  only  accessory,  and  is  added  by  way  of 
parenthesis  ;  but  the  prevailing  i  lea  is  that  of  gathering  togeliier  :  "  Demoniacs  also 
were  there  ;  and  what  is  more,  they  were  healed."  If  the  <ind  is  omitted,  the  idea  of 
healing  alone  remains,  and  we  must  translate  :  "  And  the  possessed  even  were 
healed."  With  Trapa/u'ov  we  must  understand  ;i;wpa;;  Tiipou  and  SiJwvoS  are  comple- 
ments. Ver.  19  describes  the  mighty  working  of  miraculous  powers  which  took 
place  that  day.  It  was  a  time  similar  to  that  which  has  been  described  4  :  40  et  seq., 
but  to  a  far  higher  degree.     'Iuto  depends  on  on,  and  has  for  its  subject  Svvaiui. 

3d.  Vers.  20-29.  The  Sermon. — Tlie  aim,  prevailing  thought,  and  plan  of  this  dis- 
course have  been  understood  in  many  dillerent  ways.  The  solution  of  these  questions 
is  rendered  more  dilTicult  by  the  difference  Ijetween  the  two  accounts  given  by  Mat- 
thew and  Luke.  As  to  its  aim,  Weizsackcr  regards  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  a 
grand  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  addressed  to  the  whole  people  ;  and  it  is 
in  Matthew's  version  tliat  he  linds  the  best  suppoit  for  this  view  of  it.  He  acknowl- 
e:]ges,  nevertheless,  that  the  fact  staled  in  the  preface  (.5  : 1,  3  :  "He  taught  them 
[His  disciples],  sa^'ing  .  .  .")  is  not  la  harmony  with  this  design.  Luke,  accord- 
ing to  him,  has  deviated  further  even  than  Matthew  from  its  original  aim,  b^'  modify- 
ing the  entire  discourse,  to  make  it  an  address  to  the  dis(!iples  alone.  Kilsclil  and 
Ilollzmann,  on  the  contrarj',  think  that  the  discourse  was  addressed  otigiually  to  the 
disci|)les  alone,  and  that  Luke's  version  of  it  has  preserved  with  greater  accuracy  its 
real  tenor  ;  only  the  situation  described  vers.  17-19  would  not,  according  to  Ilultz- 
mann,  accord  with  its  being  addressed  to  them.  Keim  reconciles  all  these  different 
views  by  distinguishing  two  principal  discourses,  one  addressed  to  all  the  people, 
about  the  time  of  the  Passover  feast,  of  which  we  have  fiagments  in  Matt.  G  :  I'J-o-l, 
7  :  7-11,  1-0,  21-27.  This  inaugural  discourse  would  be  on  the  chief  care  of  human 
life.  The  second  is  supposed  to  liave  been  addressed  somewhat  later  to  the  disciples 
only,  about  the  time  of  Pentecost.  Matt.  5  is  a  summary  of  it.  This  would  be  a 
word  of  welcome  addressed  by  Jesus  to  His  disciples,  and  an  exposition  of  the  new 
law  as  the  fulilnient  of  the  old.  As  to  the  criticism  on  the  Pharisaical  virtues,  Malt. 
G  :  1-18.  it  is  doubtless  clo.sely  related,  both  in  substance  and  time,  to  the  preceding 
discourse  ;  but  it  did  not  form  part  of  it, 

*  "  Die  Evancelien,"  p.  457. 

f  Ver.  17.  ».  B.  L.  Syr""'',  read  tto/vc  after  o,t?.o;.  Ver.  18.  ».  A.  B.  D.  L.  Q. 
some  ^Inn.  It.  omit  K<n  before  EOejinn-evovro. 


198  COMMENTARY    OK   ST.   LUKE. 

The  prevailing  idea  in  Matlliew.vas  certainly  an  exposition  of  the  new  law  in  its 
relations  with  the  old.  lu  Luke,  the  subject  is  simply  the  law  of  charity,  as  the 
foundation  of  the  new  order  of  things.  Many  critics  deny  that  any  agreement  can 
he  found  between  these  two  subjects.  According  to  Hollzmann,  the  5l1i  chapter  of 
Matthew  should  be  regarded  as  a  separate  dissertation  which  the  author  of  the  first 
[Gospel  introduced  into  the  Sermon  ;  Keim  thinks  that  Luke,  as  a  disciple  of  Paul, 
Wanted  to  detach  the  new  morality  completely  from  the  old.  The  anonymous  Saxon 
even  sets  himself  to  prove  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  transformed  by  Luke 
into  a  cutting  satire  against — Saint  Peter  ! 

As  to  the  plan  of  the  discourse,  many  attempts  have  been  made  to  systematize  it. 
Beck  :  (1)  the  doctrine  of  happiness  (beatitudes)  ;  (2)  that  of  righteousness  (the  cen- 
tral part  in  Matthew  and  Luke)  ;  (3)  that  of  wisdom  (conclusion).  Oosterzee  :  (l)the 
salutation  of  love  (Luke,  vers.  20-2G)  ;  (2)  the  commandment  of  love  (vers.  27-38) ; 
(3)  the  impulse  of  love  (vers.  39-49).  The  best  division,  regarding  it  In  this  abstract 
"way,  and  taking  Matthew  as  a  basis,  is  certainly  that  of  Gess  :  (1)  the  happiness  of 
those  who  are  fit  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  (Matt.  5  :  3-12)  ;  (2)  the  loftj'-  vocation  of 
the  disciples  (Matt.  5  :  13-lG)  ;  (3)  the  righteousness,  superior  to  that  of  the  Phari- 
sees, after  wliich  they  must  strive  who  would  enter  into  the  kingdom  (5  :  17-6  :  34)  ; 
the  rocks  on  which  they  run  a  risk  of  striking  (the  disposition  to  judge,  intemperate 
proselytizing,  being  led  away  by  false  prophets)  ;  next,  the  help  against  these  dan- 
gers, with  the  couclusiun  (7  :  1-27). 

The  solution  of  these  different  questions,  as  it  seems  to  ns,  must  be  sought  first  of 
all  in  the  position  of  affairs  which  gave  rise  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  In  order 
to  see  it  reproduced,  as  it  were,  before  our  eyes,  we  have  only  to  institute  a  com- 
parison. Picture  a  leader  of  one  of  those  great  social  revolutions,  for  which  prep- 
arations seem  making  in  our  day.  At  an  appointed  hour  he  presents  himself,  sur- 
rounded by  his  principal  adherents,  at  some  public  place  ;  the  crowd  gathers  ;  he 
communicates  his  plans  to  them.  He  begins  by  indicating  the  class  of  persons  to 
which  he  specially  addresses  himself  :  you,  poor  working  people,  loaded  with  suf- 
fering and  toil  !  and  he  display's  to  their  view  the  hopes  of  the  era  which  is  about  to 
dawn.  Next,  he  proclaims  the  new  principle  which  is  to  govern  humanity  in  the 
future  :  "  The  mutual  service  of  mankind  ;  justice,  universal  charity  !"  Lasll}',  he 
points  out  the  sanction  of  the  law  which  he  proclaims,  the  penalties  that  await  those 
who  violate  it,  and  the  rewards  of  those  who  faithfully  keep  it.  This  is  the  cari- 
cature ;  and  by  the  aid  of  its  exaggerations,  we  are  able  to  give  some  account  of  the 
features  of  the  original  model.  What,  in  fact,  does  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  con- 
tain ?  Three  things  :  1st.  An  indication  of  the  persons  to  whom  Jesus  chiefly  ad- 
dressed Himself,  in  order  to  form  the  new  people  (Luke,  vers.  20-26  ;  Matt.  5  :  1-12)  ; 
2d.  The  proclamation  of  the  fundamental  piiuciple  of  the  new  society''  (Luke,  vers. 
27  :4o  ;  Matt.  5  :  13-7  :  12)  ;  tid.  An  announcement  of  the  judgment  to  which  the 
members  of  the  new  kingdom  of  God  will  have  to  submit.  (Luke,  vers.  46-49  ;  Matt. 
7  :  13-27).  In  other  words:  the  call,  the  declaration  of  principles,  and  their  sanc- 
tion. This  is  the  order  of  the  discourse.  Tiiere  is  nothing  artificial  about  this  plan.' 
It  is  not  a  logical  outline  forcibly  fitted  to  the  discourse  ;  it  is  the  result  of  the  actual 
position  of  the  work  of  Jesus,  just  as  we  have  stated  it.  The  discourse  itself  explains 
for  whom  it  is  intended.  Jesus  addresses  the  mass  of  the  people  present,  as  forming 
the  circle  within  which  the  new  order  of  things  is  to  be  realized,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  disciples  and  apostles,  by  means  of  whom  this  revolution  is  to  be  brought  about. 


CHAP.  VI.  :  20-26.  199 

Luke  and  Matthew,  therefore,  are  not  at  variance  in  this  matter,  cither  with  each 
other  or  wiih  themselves.     As  to  the  fuudameutal  idea  of  this  discourse,  see  ver.  27. 

First  part  :  vers.  20-36.  The  Call. — This  solemn  invitation  describes  :  {\st.)  Those 
who  are  qualified  to  become  members  of  the  order  of  things  inaugurated  by  Jesus 
(vers.  20-2;J)  ;  (2(Z.)  Their  adversaries  (vers.  24-2G),  Matthew  begins  in  the  same  way  ; 
but  tliere  are  two  important  differences  between  him  and  Luke:  Ist.  The  latter  has 
only  four  bealitudes  ;  Matthew  has  eight  (not  seven  or  nine,  as  is  often  said).  2d. 
To  the  four  bealiuules  of  Luke  are  joined  four  woes,  which  are  wanting  in  Matthew.  ( 
In  Luke's  form,  Keim  sees  nothing  but  an  artificial  construction.  That  would  not  in 
any  case  be  the  work  of  Luke,  but  of  his  document.  For  if  there  is  any  one  poition 
which  from  its  contents  should  be  assigned  to  the  primitive  document  (of  an  Ebionilish 
color),  evidenlly  it  is  this.  But  the  context  appears  to  us  decisive  in  favor  of  Luke's 
version.  This  call  deals  with  the  conditions  which  quiilif}'  for  entering  into  the 
kingdom.  These  are  clearly  indicated  in  the  first  four  bealiludes  of  Matthew  ;  but 
the  next  four  (mercy,  purity  of  heart,  a  peaceable  spirit,  and  joy  under  persecution') 
indicate  the  dispcxsitions  by  means  of  which  men  will  lemain  in  the  kingdom,  and 
consecpiently  their  natural  place  is  not  in  this  call.  It  is  only  the  eighth  (Luke's 
fourth)  which  can  belong  here,  as  a  transition  from  the  persecuted  disciples  to  the 
persecutors,  who  are  the  objects  of  the  following  woes.  Two  of  the  last  four 
bealiludes  of  Matthew  find  their  place  very  naturally  in  the  body  of  the  discourse. 
As  to  the  woes,  they  perfectly  agree  with  the  context.  After  having  proclaimed  the 
blessedness  of  those  who  are  qualified  to  enter,  Jesus  announces  the  unhapjiiness  of 
those  who  aie  animated  by  contiary  dispositions.  Schleiermacher  says:  a  harmless 
addition  of  Luke's.  But,  as  we  have  just  seen,  Luke  is  here  certainly  only  a  copyist. 
A  Gentile  Chiistiau  would  not  haye  dreamed  of  identifying,  as  Judaism  did,  the  two 
ideas  of  piety  and  poverty  ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  liches  and  violence.  De  Welle 
says  :  the  first  manifestation  of  the  fixed  (Ebioniiish)  idea  of  Luke.  But  see  12  :  o2, 
10  :  27,  and  18  :  18-30. 

Vers.  20  and  21.  "  And  He  lifted  up  Ilis  eyes  on  His  disciples,  and  said,  Blessed 
be  ye  poor  :  for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  21,  Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger  now  : 
for  ye  shall  be  filled.  Ble>sed  are  ye  that  weep  now  :  for  ye  shall  laugh."  The  dis- 
ciples arc  the  constant  hearers  of  Jesus,  among  whom  He  has  just  assigned  a  distinct 
place  to  His  apostles.  I^uke  does  not  t^ay  that  Jesus  sookc  to  them  alone.  He  spoke 
to  all  the  people,  but  regarding  them  as  the  representatives  of  the  new  order  of  things 
wiiich  lie  was  about  to  institute.  In  Matthew,  avrovr,  ver.  2  (He  taught  them),  com- 
prises both  the  iitople  and  the,  disciples,  ver.  1.  This  commencement  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  3Iount  breathes  a  sentiment  of  the  deepest  joy.  In  these  disciples  immedi- 
ately about  Him,  and  in  this  multitude  surrounding  Him  in  orderly  ranks,  all  eager 
to  hear  the  word  of  God,  Jesus  beholds  the  first  appearance  of  the  true  Israel,  the  true 
people  of  the  kingdom.  He  surveys  with  deep  joy  this  congregation  which  His 
father  has  brought  together  for  Him,  and  begins  to  speak.  It  must  have  been  a 
peculiarly  solemn  moment  ;  comp.  the  similar  picture.  Malt.  5  : 1,  2. 

This  assembly  wjis  chiefly  composed  of  persons  belonging  to  the  poor  and  suffer- 
ing classes.  Jesus  knew  it  ;  He  recognizes  in  this  a  higher  will,  and  in  Ilis  first 
words  He  does  homage  to  this  divine  dispensation.  Uruxoi,  which  we  translate poo?% 
comes  from  Trruacu,  to  make  one's  self  little,  to  crouch,  and  conveys  the  idea  of  humilia- 
tion rather  than  of  poverty  (TTt'vj??).  Yleivuvre;,  the  hungry  (a  word  connected  •with 
nivj):.),  denotes  rather  those  whom  poverty  condemns  to  a  life  of.  toil  and  privation. 


200  CO-MMEXTARY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

This  second  term  marks  the  transition  to  the  third,  tliose  who  iceej),  among  whom 
must  be  numbered  all  classes  of  persons  who  are  weighed  down  by  the  trials  of  life. 
All  those  persons  who,  in  ordinary  language,  are  called  nnhapp}',  Jesus  salutes  with 
the  epithet  fiUKupioL,  blessed.  This  word  answers  to  the  "'7Ii7{>^.  felicitates,  of  Ihe  O.  T. 
(Ps,  1  : 1  and  elsewhere).  The  idea  is  the  same  as  in  uumeiuus  passages  in  which  the 
poor  and  despised  are  spoken  of  as  God's  chosen  ones,  not  because  poverty  and  suf- 
fering are  in  themselves  a  title  to  His  blessing,  but  they  dispuse  the  soul  to  those 
meek  and  lowly  dispositions  which  qualify  them  to  leceive  it,  just  as,  on  the  other 
liand,  prosperity  and  riches  dispose  the  heart  to  be  proud  and  haid.  In  the  very 
composition  of  this  congregation,  Jesus  sees  a  proof  of  this  fact  of  experience  so  often 
expressed  in  the  O.  T.  The  joy  which  He  feels  at  this  sight  arises  fiom  the  mag- 
nificent promises  which  He  can  offer  to  such  hearers. 

The  kingdom  of  God  is  a  state  cf  things  in  which  the  will  of  God  reigns  supreme. 
This  stale  is  realized  fiistof  all  in  the  hearts  of  men,  in  the  heart  it  may  be  of  a  single 
man,  but  speedily  in  the  hearts  of  a  great  number  ;  and  eventually  there  will  come  a 
;day  when,  all  rebellious  elements  having  been  vanquished  or  taken  away,  it  will  be 
ifound  in  the  hearts  of  all.  It  is  an  order  of  things,  therefore,  which,  from  being  in- 
ward and  individual,  tends  to  become  outward  and  social,  until  at  length  it  shall  take 
possession  of  the  entire  domain  of  human  life,  and  appear  as  a  distinct  epoch  in  his- 
itory.  Since  this  glorious  state  as  yet  exists  m  a  perfect  manner  only  in  a  higher 
sphere,  it  is  also  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (the  ordinary  term  in  Matthew).  Luke 
V  says  :  is— not  shallbe — j'ours  ;  which  denotes  partial  present  possession,  and  a  right 
lo  perfect  future  possession.  But  are  men  members  of  this  kingdom  simply  through 
being  poor  and  suffering?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in  what  pre- 
cedes, and  in  such  passages  as  Isa.  GG  .  2  .  "  To  whom  will  I  look  ?  sailh  the  Lord. 
To  him  who  is  poor  (i-y)  and  of  a  broken  spirit,  and  who  trembles  at  my  word."  It 
is  to  heaits  which  suffering  has  broken  that  Jesus  brings  the  blessings  of  the  king- 
[dorii.  These  blessings  are  piimarily  spiritual — pardon  and  holiness.  But  outward 
blessings  cannot  fail  to  follow  them  ;  and  this  notion  is  also  contained  in  the  idea  of 
a  kingdom  of  God,  for  glory  is  the  crown  of  grace.  The  words  of  Jesus  contain, 
therefore,  the  following  succession  of  ideas  :  temporal  abasement,  from  which  come 
humiliation  and  sighing  after  God;  then  spiritual  graces,  crowned  with  outward 
^blessings.  The  .same  connection  of  iicas  explains  the  beatitudes  that  fellow.  Yer. 
21a  :  temporal  poverty  (being  hungry)  leads  the  soul  to  the  need  of  God  and  of  His 
'grace  (Ps.  42:1);  then  out  of  the  satisfaction  of  this  spiritual  hunger  and  thirst 
arises  full  outward  satisfaction  (being  filled).  Ver.  2lb  :  with  tears  shed  over  tem- 
poral misfortunes,  is  easily  connected  the  mourning  of  the  soul  for  its  sins  ;  the  latter 
draws  down  the  unspeakable  consolations  of  divine  love,  which  eventually  raise  the 
soul  to  the  triumph  of  perfect  joy.  The  terms  K/inieiv,  to  sob,  yelg.v,  to  laugh,  cannot 
well  be  literally  rendered  here.  They  denote  a  grief  and  joy  which  find  outward 
demonstrathjn  ;  comp.  Ps.  126  :  2,  "  Our  mouth  was  filled  with  laughter,"  and  Paul's 
uavxu-aBai  hv  Qtu,  to  joy  in  God  (Rom.  5  :  11).  The  text  of  Matthew  presents  here  two 
fmportant  differences  :  1st.  He  employs  the  third  person  instead  of  the  second  : 
"  Blessed  are  the  poor,  fur  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  they  that  mourn,  for 
they  shall  be  comfoited."  etc.  The  beatitudes,  which  in  Luke  are  addressed  directly 
to  the  hearers,  are  presented  here  under  the  form  of  general  maxims  and  moral  sen- 
tences. 2d.  In  Matthew,  these  maxims  have  an  exclusivel}''  spiritual  meaning  :  "  the 
poor  in  spirit,  they  who  hunger  after  righteousness."     Here  interpreters  are  divided. 


CHAP.   VI.  :  22,  23.  X'Ol 

some  maiutaining  that  Matthew  has  sjiiritutilizi'd  the  words  of  Jesus  ;  others  (as 
Kcim),  thai  Luke,  under  the  iufluuncu  of  a  prejudice  against  riches,  has  given  to 
these  blessings  a  grossly  temporal  meaning.  Two  things  appear  evident  to  us  :  (l)i 
That  the  direct  form  of  address  in  Luke,  "  Ye,"  can  alone  be  historically  accurate  : 
Jesus  was  speakuig  to  His  heaiers,  not  discoursing  bufore  them.  (2)  That  this  first 
difference  has  led  to  the  second  ,  having  adopted  the  third  person,  and  given  the 
beatitudes  that  Maschai  form  so  ofteu  found  in  Ihediilaclicparlsof  the  O.  T.  (Psalms, 
Proverbs),  Matthew  was  obliged  to  bring  out  expressly  iu  the  text  of  the  discourse 
lh')se  moral  aims  which  are  inherent  iu  the  very  persons  of  the  poor  whom  Jesus 
addresses  directly  m  Luke,  and  without  which  these  words,  iu  this  abstract  form, 
would  have  been  somewhat  too  unqualified.  How  could  one  say,  without  qualifica- 
tion, Blessed  are  the  poor,  the  hungry  ?  Tempoial  sufferings  of  themselves  could  not 
be  a  pledge  of  salvation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  form,  Blessed  are  ye  poor,  ye  hungry, 
in  Luke,  renders  all  such  explanation  superfluous.  For  Jesus,  when  He  spoke  thus, 
was  addressing  particular  concrete  poor  and  afflicted,  whom  He  alntady  recognized 
as  His  disciples,  as  believers,  and  whom  He  regarded  as  the  representatives  of  that 
uew  people  whicli  He  was  come  to  install  in  the  earth.  That  they  were  such  attentive 
hearers  sutlieiently  proved  that  the}'  were  of  the  number  of  those  in  whom  temporal 
sufferings  had  awakened  the  need  of  divine  consolation,  that  Ihej'  belonged  to  those 
laboiing  aud  heavj'-laden  souls  whom  He  was  sent  to  lead  to  rest  (Matt.  11  :  29),  and 
that  they  hungered,  not  for  material  bread  cnlj-,  but  for  the  bread  of  life,  for  the  word 
of  God,  for  God  Himself.  The  qualificaliou  which  Matthew  was  necessarily 
obliged  to  add,  in  order  to  limit  the  application  of  the  beatitudes,  in  the  general  form 
which  he  gives  to  them,  is  in  Luke  then  implied  in  this  ye,  which  was  ordy  addressed 
to  poor  believers.  These  two  differences  between  Mallliew  and  Luke  are  very  sig- 
nificant. They  seem  to  me  to  i)rove  :  (1)  that  the  text  of  Luke  is  a  more  exact  report 
of  the  discourse  than  ^latthew's  ;  (3)  that  Matthew's  version  was  originally  made 
with  a  didactic  rather  than  a  historical  design,  aud  consequently  that  it  foimcd  part 
of  a  collection  of  discourses  in  which  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  set  foilh  without  re- 
gard to  the  paitieular  circumstances  under  which  He  gave  it,  before  it  entered  into 
the  historical  framework  in  which  we  find  it  contained  at  the  present  day. 

Vers.  23  aud  23.*  "  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  hate  you,  and  wheu  they 
shall  separate  you  from  their  c.)mpauy,  and  shall  reproach  you,  and  cast  out  your 
name  as  evil,  for  the  Son  of  man's  sake.  23.  Rejoice  ye  in  that  day,  and  leap  for 
joy  ;  for,  behold,  your  leward  is  great  in  heaven  :  for  in  Lke  manner  did  Ihtir  fathers 
unto  the  prophets."  This  fourth  beatitude  is  completely  accounted  for,  in  Lidve, 
by  the  scenes  of  violent  iiostility  which  ha  1  already  taken  place.  It  is  not  so  well 
accounted  for  in  Matthew,  who  places  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  at  the  opening  of 
the  ministry  of  Jesus.  In  JMatthew,  this  saying,  like  the  preceding,  has  the  abstract 
form  of  a  moral  maxim  :  "  Blessed  are  they  which  are  persecuted  for  righteousness' 
sake  ;  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  c)f  heaven."  But  Jesus  was  certainly  not  giving 
utterance  here  to  abstract  principles  of  Christian  morality  :  He  spoke  as  a  living 
man  to  living  men.  Besides,  Mallhew  himself  passes,  in  the  next  verse,  to  the  form 
of  address  adopled  by  Luke  from  the  commencement.  The  i  xplanatory  adjunct,  for 
1-tghteousness'  sake,  in  Matthew,  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  same  cause  as  the  similar 

*  Ver.  23.  Al'  the  Mjj.,  x"PV'^^  instead  of  xntperf,  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  some 
Mnu.     B,  D.  t^.  X.  Z.  Syr"*'.  It*"''.,  Kara  ra  avra  instead  of  />.«7ci  tuvtu. 


202  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

qualifications  in  the  precedinc^  beatitudes.  By  the  prcs.  eare,  "  happy  arc  ye,"  Jesus 
transports  His  hearers  directly  into  this  immediate  future.  The  term  CKpopl^eiv,  to 
separate,  refers  to  exclusion  from  the  synagogue  (.John  9  :  22).  The  strange  expres- 
sion, cast  out  your  name,  is  explained  in  very  jejune  fashion,  both  by  Bleek,  to  pro- 
nounce the  name  with  disgust,  and  bj'  De  Wette  and  Meyer,  to  refuse  altogether  lo 
pronounce  it.  It  refers  rather  to  the  expunging  of  the  name  from  the  synagogue  roll 
of  membership.  There  is  not,  on  this  account,  any  tautology  of  the  preceding  idea. 
To  separate,  to  insult,  indicated  acts  of  unpremeditated  violence  ;  to  erase  the  name 
is  a  permanent  measure  taken  with  deliberation  and  coolness.  Tlovripuv,  evil,  as  an 
epitome  of  every  kind  of  wickedness.  In  their  accounts  of  this  saying,  this  is  the 
only  word  left  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  in  common.  Instead  of  for  tJie  Son 
of  man's  sake,  Matthew  say:i  for  my  sake.  The  latter  expression  denotes  attachment 
to  the  person  of  Jesus  ;  the  former  faith  in  His  Messianic  character,  as  the  perfect 
representative  of  humanity.  On  this  point  also  Luke  appears  to  me  to  have  pre- 
served the  true  text  of  this  saying  ;  it  is  with  IIis  work  that  Jesus  here  wishes  to  con- 
nect the  idea  of  persecution.  This  idea  of  sulimission  to  persecution  along  with, 
and  for  the  sake  of,  the  Messiah,  was  so  foreign  to  the  Jewish  point  of  vipw  that  Jesus 
feeKs  He  must  justify  it.  Tlie  sufferings  of  the  adiisrents  of  Jesus  will  only  be  a 
continuation  of  the  sulteriugs  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah.  Tliis  is  the  great  matter 
of  consolation  that  He  offers  them.  They  will  be,  by  their  very  sufferings,  raised 
to  the  rank  of  the  old  prophets  ;  the  recompense  of  the  Elijahs  and  Isaiahs  will 
become  theirs.  The  reading  Kara  r«  avrd,  in  the  same  manner,  appears  preferable  to 
the  received  reading  Kara  rnvrn,  in  this  manner.  Ta  and  avrd  have  probably  been 
made  into  one  word.  The  imperf.  knoiow  (treated)  indicates  liabit.  The  pronoun 
avTtjv,  their  fathers,  is  dictated  by  the  idea  that  the  disciples  belong  already  to  a  new 
order  of  things.  The  word  their  serves  as  a  transition  to  the  woes  which  folluw, 
addressed  to  the  heads  of  the  existinsr  order  of  things. 

Vers.  24-26."-^  "  But  woe  unto  you  that  are  lich  !  for  ye  have  received  your  con- 
solation. 25.  Woe  unto  you  that  are  full  !  for  ye  shall  hunger.  Woe  unto  you  that 
laugh  now  !  for  ye  shall  mourn  and  weep.  20.  Woe  unto  you  wheu  all  men  shall 
speak  well  of  you  !  for  so  did  their  fathtis  to  the  false  prophets."  Jesus  here  con- 
templates in  spirit  those  adversaries  who  were  sharpening  against  Him  only  just  be- 
fore (ver.  11)  the  swnid  of  per; ecution  :  the  rich  and  powerful  at  Jerusalem,  whose 
emissaries  surrounded  Him  in  Galilee.  Perhaps  at  this  very  moment  He  perceives 
some  of  their  spies  in  the  outer  ranks  of  the  congregation.  Certainly  it  is  not  the 
rich,  as  such,  that  He  curses,  any  more  than  He  pronounced  the  poor  as  such  blessed. 
A  Nicodemus  or  a  Joseph  of  Arimathea  v.'ijl  be  welcomed  with  open  arms  as  readily 
us  the  poorest  man  in  Israel.  Jesus  is  dealing  here  with  historical  fact,  not  with 
moral  philosophy.  He  takes  the  fact  as  it  presented  itself  to  Him  at  that  time. 
("Were  not  the  rich  and  powerful,  as  a  class,  already  in  open  opposition  to  His  mis- 
Ision  ?  They  were  thus  excluding  themselves  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  fall  of 
Jerusalem  fulfilled  ovi\Y  too  literally  the  maledictions  to  which  Jesus  gave  utterance 
on  that  solemn  daj'.  The  nljiv,  excejA,  only,  wliich  we  can  only  render  by  hut  {vex. 
24),  makes    the  persons  here  designated    an    exception  as   regards  the  preceding 

*  Ver.  25.  9Mjj.  someMnn.  read  vw  after  efnreTXrjnuevoi.  !*.  B.  K.  L.  S.  X.  Z.  and 
some  Mnn.  omit  the  second  vfiiv.  Ver.  26.  20  Mjj.  omit  vjiiv,  which  is  the  reading 
of  T.  R.  with  B.  A.  only.  8  Mjj.  100  Mnn.  omit^rai^res.  The  Mss,  are  divided  be- 
tween Kara  ravra  (T.  R.)  and  Kara  ra  avra. 


cHAi'.    VI.  :  2-^'2(>.  ;2U3 

beatitudes.  The  term  Jvc/i  refers  to  soc.iul  position, /»K  to  mode  of  living;  tli(!  cx-\ 
pri'ssioti,  you  tluit  Uiiigh,  describes  a  personal  dispnsilion.  All  these  outward  con- 
dilious  are  considered  as  associated  with  an  avaricious  spirit,  with  injustice,  pioud 
sulf-satisfacliou,  and  a  profane  levity,  which  did  indeed  attach  to  them  at  that  time. 
It  was  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  more  particularly  that  these  threaleuings  were 
addiessed.  The  word  vvv,  now,  which  several  Mss.  read  in  the  liist  proposition,  is  a 
faulty  imitatioQ  of  the  second,  where  it  is  found  in  all  the  documents.  It  is  in  i)laee 
in  the  latter  ;  for  the  notion  of  laughing  coulains  something  more  transient  than  thaf 
of  being  full.  The  expression  u-jixeTe,  which  we  have  rendered  by  ye  have  received, 
signifies  :  you  have  taken  and  carried  away  everything  ;  all  therefore  is  exhau.'ted. 
Cunip.  IG  :  25.  The  terms  hunger,  weeping,  were  literally  realized  in  the  great 
national  catastrophe  which  followed  soon  after  this  malediction;  but  thej^  also  con- 
tain an  allusion  to  the  privations  and  sufferings  which  await,  after  death,  those  who 
have  found  their  happiness  in  this  world.  lu  ver.  26  it  is  more  paiticuhuly  the 
Pliarisees  :md  scribes,  whi  were  so  generally  honored  in  Israel,  that  Jesus  points  out 
as  continuing  the  work  of  the  false  prophets.  These  four  woes  would  be  iucompalible 
with  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  terms  ^wor,  hungry,  etc.,  in  the  beatitudes. 

The  sec-und  part  of  the  discourse  :  vers.  27-45.  I'he  Hew  Law. — Here  we  have  the 
body  of  the  discourse.  Jesus  proclaims  the  supreme  law  of  the  new  society.  The 
diderence  from  Matthew  comes  out  in  a  yet  more  striking  manner  in  this  part  than  in 
liie  preceding.  In  the  first  Gospel,  the  principal  idea  is  the  opposition  between  Ugal 
righteousness  and  the  new  righteousness  which  Jesus  came  to  establish.  He  Ilimstlf 
auuouaces  the  text  of  the  discourse  in  this  saying  (ver.  20)  :  "  Except  your  right- 
eousness exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  law,  in  the  greater  number  of  its  statutes, 
seemed  at  first  sight  only  to  require  outward  observauce.  But  it  was  evident  to  every 
true  heart,  that  by  these  commandments  the  God  of  holiness  desired  to  lead  His  wor- 
shippers, not  to  hypociitical  formalism,  but  to  spiritual  obedience.  The  tenth  com- 
mandment made  this  very  clear,  as  far  as  respected  the  decalogue.  Israelitish  teach- 
ing should  have  labored  to  explain  the  law  iu  this  truly  moral  sense,  and  to  have 
carried  the  people  up  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit,  as  the  prcphels  had  endeavored  to 
do.  Instead  of  that,  Pharisaism  had  taken  pleasure  in  multipljing  indefiuitely  legal 
observances,  and  in  regulating  them  with  the  minutest  exactness,  urging  the  letter  of 
the  precept  to  such  a  degree  as  sometimes  even  to  make  it  contradict  its  spirit.  It 
had  stifled  morality  under  legalism.  Comp.  Malt.  15  : 1-20  and  23.  In  dealing  with 
this  crying  abuse,  .Icsus  breaks  into  the  heart  of  the  letter  with  a  bold  hand,  iu  order 
to  .set  free  its  spirit,  and  displaying  this  iu  all  its  beauty,  casts  aside  at  once  the  letter, 
which  was  only  its  imperfect  envelope,  and  that  Pharisaical  righteousness,  which 
rested  on  nothing  else  than  an  indefinite  amplification  of  the  letter.  Thus  Jesus  finds 
the  secret  of  the  abolition  of  the  law  in  its  very  fulfilment.  Paul  understood  and  de- 
veloped this  better  than  anybody.  What,  in  fact,  is  the  legislator's  intention  in  im- 
posing the  letter  ?  Not  the  letter,  but  the  spirit.  The  letter,  like  the  thick  calj'X 
under  the  protection  of  which  the  flower,  with  its  delicate  organs,  is  formed,  was 
only  a  means  of  pre.-^erving  and  developing  its  inward  meaning  of  goodness,  until  the 
time  came  when  it  could  bloom  freely.  Tliis  time  had  come.  Jesus  on  the  moun- 
tain proclaims  it.  And  this  is  why  this  day  is  the  counterpart  of  the  day  of  Sinai. 
He  opposes  the  letter  of  the  divine  commandment,  understood  as  letter,  to  the  spirit 
contained  in  it,  and  develops  this  contrast.  Matt.  5,  iu  a  series  of  antitheses  so  strik- 


;20-t  COMMJCNTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE, 

Ing  that  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  either  their  authenticity  or  that  tliey  formed  the 
reul  substance,  the  centre  of  the  Sermon  on  tlie  Mount.  Ilollzmann  -vsill  never  suc- 
ceed in  persuading  any  one  to  tlie  contrary  ;  his  entire  crilical  hypothesis  as  to  llic 
relations  of  the  Syn.  will  crumble  away  sooner  than  this  conviction.  The  CDnnec- 
tion  of  the  discourse  in  Matthew  is  this  :  1.  Jesus  discloses  wherein  the  Pharisaical 
liirhteousuess  fails,  its  want  of  inward  trulh  (vers.  13-48).  2.  He  judges,  l)y  this 
law,  the  three  pos^itive  manifestations  of  this  boasted  righteousness  :  almsgiving, 
pra^^er,  and  fasting  (G  :  1-18).  8.  He  attacks  two  of  the  most  characteristic  sins  of 
Pharisaism  :  covetousness  and  censoriousuess  (G  :  19-84  ;  7  : 1-5).  4.  Lastly  there 
cime  various  particular  precepts  on  prayer,  conversion,  false  religious  teaching,  etc. 
(7  :  6-30).  But  between  these  precepts  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  establish  a  perfectly 
natural  couneclion.  Such  is  the  body  of  the  Sermon  in  Matthew  :  at  the  commence- 
ment, an  unbroken  chain  of  thought ;  then  a  connection  which  becomes  slighter  and 
slighter,  until  it  ceases  altogether,  and  the  discourse  becomes  a  simple  collection  of 
detached  sayings.  But  the  fundamental  idea  is  still  the  opposition  between  the  for- 
malism of  the  ancient  righteousness  and  the  spirituality  of  the  new. 
I  In  Luke  also,  the  subject  of  the  discourse  is  the  perfect  law  of  the  new  order  of 
things  ;  but  this  law  is  exhibited,  not  under  its  abstract  and  pol'imical  relation  of 
spirituality,  but  under  its  concrete  and  positive  form  of  charity.  The  plan  of  this 
part  of  the  discourse,  in  Luke,  is  as  follows  :  Isi.  Jesus  describes  the  practical  mani- 
festations of  the  new  piiuciple  (vers.  27-30)  ;  then,  2d.  He  gives  concise  expiessiou 
to  it  Cver.  31) ;  3d.  He  indicates  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  charity,  by  contrast- 
ing this  vittue  with  ceitain  natural  analogous  sentiments  (vers.  32-3r)a)  ;  4th.  He  sets 
fui th  its  model  and  source  (vers.  856  and  8G)  ;  5(h.  Lastly,  He  exhibits  this  giatu- 
ilous,  disinterested  love  as  the  principle  of  a'l  sound  judgment  and  salutary  religious 
teaching,  contrasting  in  this  respect  the  new  ministry,  which  He  is  establishing  in  the 
eaith  in  the  presence  of  His  disciples,  with  the  old,  which,  as  embodied  in  the  Phari- 
sees, is  vanishing  away  (vers.  37-45). 

At  the  first  glance  there  seems  little  or  nothing  in  common  between  this  body  of  the 
discourse  and  that  which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  Matthew  gives  us.  We  can  even 
understand,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  odd  notion  of  Schleiermacher,  that  these  two 
versions  emanated  from  two  hearers,  of  whom  one  was  more  favorably  situated  for 
hearing  than  the  other  !  The  difference,  however,  lietween  these  two  versions  may 
be  accounted  for  by  connecting  the  fully -developed  subject  in  Luke  with  the  subject 
of  the  last  two  of  the  six  antitheses,  by  which  Jesus  describes  (Matt.  5)  the  contiast 
between  legal  righteousness  and  true  righteousness.  Jesus  attacks,  vers.  88-48,  the 
Pharisaical  comraentar}^  on  Ihete  two  precepts  of  the  law  :  an  eye  for  an  eye  .  .  . 
and,  Viou  sMlt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  This  commentar3%  by  applying  the  lex 
talionis,  which  had  only  been  given  as  a  rule  for  the  judges  of  Israel,  to  private  life, 
and  by  deducing  from  the  word  neighbor  this  consequence  :  therefore  thou  mayest 
hate  him  who  is  not  thy  neighbor,  that  is  to  say,  the  foreigner,  or  thine  enemy,  had 
entirely  falsified  the  meaning  of  the  law  on  these  two  points.  In  opposition  to  these 
caricatures,  Jesus  sets  forth,  in  Matthew,  the  inexhaustible  and  perfect  grace  of 
charity,  as  exhibited  to  man  in  the  example  of  his  heavenly  Benefactc*  ;  then  He  pro- 
ceeds to  identify  this  charity  in  man  with  the  divine  perfection  itself  :  "  Be  ye  per- 
fect [ihrough  charity],  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect."  Now  it  is  just 
at  this  point  that  Luke  begins  to  appropriate  the  central  part  of  the  discourse.  These 
last  two  antitheses,  which  terminate  in  Matthew  in  the  lofty  thought  (ver.  48)  of  man 


c'liAi'.    VI.  :  2],  -i^.  20ij 

beiri?  elevated  by  love  to  the  perfection  of  God,  furnish  LuUp  with  the  leading  idea 
of  tiie  discourse  ns  he  presents  it — namely,  charily  as  the  law  of  the  new  life.  Its 
tlienie  is  in  this  way  nioditied  in  form,  but  it  is  not  altered  in  substance.  For  if,  as 
St.  Paul  says.  Rom.  lo  :  10,  "  charity  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  ;  "  if  perfect 
spirituality,  complete  likeness  to  God,  consists  in  charily  ;  the  fundamental  agree- 
ment between  the.se  tw,>  f()ims  of  the  Sermon  on  the  ISlount  is  evident.  Only  Luke 
has  deemeil  it  advisahlu  to  omit  all  that  specially  referred  to  the  ancient  law  and  the 
comments  of  the  Pliarisees,  and  to  pieserve  only  that  which  has  a  universal  hiunan 
bearing,  the  opposition  between  charily  and  than  natural  seltishuess  of  the  human 
heart. 

The  two  accounts  being  thus  related,  it  follows,  that  as  regards  the  original 
structure  of  the  discourse,  in  so  far  as  this  was  determined  by  opposition  to  Phari- 
saism, Matthew  has  preserved  it  more  completely  than  Luke.  But  though  this  is  so, 
Matthew's  discourse  still  contains  many  details  not  originally  belonging  to  it,  which 
Luke  has  very  properly  assigned  to  entirely  different  places  in  other  parts  of  his 
narrative.  We  find  here  once  more  the  two  writers  following  their  respective  bent  : 
Matlliew,  having  a  didactic  aim.,  exhibits  in  a  general  manner  the  teaching  of  Je.^us 
on  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom,  by  including  in  this  outline  many  saj-ings 
spoken  on  other  occasions,  but  ix-aring  on  the  same  subject  ;  Luke,  writing  as  a 
historian,  confines  himself  more  strictly  to  the  actual  words  which  Jesus  uttered  at 
this  time.     Thus  each  of  them  has  his  own  kind  of  superiority  over  the  other-. 

Ut.  The  manifestations  of  charity  ;  vers.  27-30.  To  describe  the  manifestations 
of  this  new  princii)le,  which  is  henceforth  to  sway  the  world,  was  the  most  popular 
and  effectual  waj'  of  introducing  it  into  the  consciences  of  his  hearers.  Jesus  de- 
scribes, first  of  all,  charity  in  its  active  form  (vers.  27  and  28)  ;  then  in  its  passive 
form  of  endurance  (vers.  2"J  and   30). 

Vers.  27.  28.*  "  But  1  say  unto  j'ou  which  hear,  Love  your  enemies,  do  good  to 
them  which  hate  jou.  28.  Bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you."  There  is  a  break  in  the  connection  between  ver.  2G  and  ver. 
27.  De  "W'ette  and  ^Nfeyer  think  that  the  link  is  to  be  found  in  this  thought  under- 
stood :  "  Notwithstanding  these  curses  which  I  pronounce  upon  the  rich,  your  per- 
secutors, I  command  you  not  to  hate,  but  to  love  them."  But  in  the  verses  that  fol- 
low, it  is  not  the  lich  particularly  that  are  represented  as  the  enemies  whom  His  dis- 
ciples should  love.  The  precept  of  love  to  enemies  is  given  in  the  most  general 
manner.  Rather  is  it  the  new  law  which  Jesus  announces  here,  as  in  Matthew.  The 
link  of  connection  with  what  goes  before  is  this  :  In  the  midst  of  this  hatred  of 
which  you  will  be  the  ol)jects  (ver.  22),  it  will  be  your  duty  to  realize  in  the  world 
the  perfect  law  which  I  to-day  proclaim  to  you.  Tholuck,  in  his  "  E.xplunation  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount"  (p.  498),  takes  exception  to  Luke  for  giving  these  precepts 
a  place  here,  where  they  have  no  connection  ;  but  he  thus  shows  that  he  has  failed 
to  understand  the  structure  of  this  discourse  in  our  Gospel,  as  we  have  exhibited  it. 
In  this  form  of  expression  :  But  J  say  unto  you  xoldcli  hear,  there  is  an  echo  as  it 
were  of  the  antithesis  of  Matthew  :  "  Ye  have  heard  .  .  .  But  I  say  unto  you." 
By  this  expression,  you  which  hear,  Jesus  opposes  the  actual  hearers  surrounding 
Him  to  those  unaginary  hearers  to  whom  the  preceding  woes  were  addressed.     We 

*  Ver.  28.  The  .\iss.  are  divided  between  v//a5  and  vfiiv.  All  the  ]Mjj.  omit  Kat  be- 
fore npoaevxeaOe,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  merely  some  Mnu.  The  msh.  are 
divided  between  ncfji  and  vnep. 


206  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST,   LUKE. 

must  conceive  of  the  words,  ver.  27  and  ver.  28,  as  having  been  pronounced  with 
some  kind  of  enthusiasm.  These  precepts  overflow  with  love.  You  have  only  to 
meet  every  manifestation  of  hatred  with  a  fresh  manifestation  of  love.  Love  !  Love  ! 
You  can  never  love  too  much  !  Tlie  term  love  denotes  the  essence  of  the  new 
principle.  Then  come  its  manifestations  :  first,  in  acts  (do  good)  ;  then  in  words 
(bless) ;  lastly,  the  highest  manifestation,  which  is  at  once  act  and  word  [prai/  for). 
These  manifestations  of  love  correspond  with  the  exhibitions  of  hatred  by  which  lliey 
are  called  forth  :  }x^P°->  hatred,  the  inward  feeling  ;  fiLaelv,  to  Jiold  in  abhorrence,  the 
acts  ;  KarapuaOai,  to  curse,  tlie  words.  ''E.TZTjpediiEiv  (probably  from  e-ni  and  alfjeaOai,  to 
rise  against,  to  thicart)  corresponds  with  intercession.  Jesus  therefore  here  requires 
more  than  that  which  to  natural  selfishness  appears  the  highest  virtue  :  not  to  render 
evil  for  evil.  He  demands  from  His  disciples,  according  to  the  expression  of  St. 
Paul  (Rom.  12  :  21),  that  they  shall  overcome  evil  with  good  ;  Jesus  could  not  yet  re- 
veal the  source  whence  His  disciples  were  to  derive  this  entirely  new  passion,  this 
divine  charity  which  displays  its  riches  of  forgiveness  and  salvation  toward  a  rebel- 
lious world  at  enmity  with  God  (Rom.  5  :  8-10).  In  the  parallel  passage  in  Matthew, 
the  two  intervening  propositions  have  probal:)ly  been  transferred  from  Luke. 

Vers.  29  and  .30.*  Patient  Charity. — "  And  unto  him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the  one 
cheek,  offer  also  the  other  ;  and  him  that  takelh  away  thy  cloak,  forbid  not  to  take 
thy  coat  also.  30.  Give  to  every  man  that  askelh  of  thee  ;  and  of  him  that  taketh 
away  thy  goods  ask  them  not  again." — Paul  also  regards  iiaKpofiv^elv,  to  be  long-suf- 
fenng,  as  on  a  par  with  ;j:p??(TT£:v£aOai,  to  do  good  (Charity  sufTereth  long,  and  is  kind. 
1  Cor.  13:  4).  The  natural  heart  thinks  it  does  a  great  deal  when  it  respects  a 
neighbor's  rights  ;  it  does  not  rise  to  the  higher  Idea  of  sacrificing  its  own.  Jesus 
liere  describes  a  charity  which  seems  to  ignore  its  own  lights,  and  knows  no  bounds 
to  its  self-sacrifice.  He  exhibits  this  sublime  ideal  in  actual  instances  (lit.  in  the  most 
concrete  traits)  and  under  the  most  paradoxical  forms.  In  order  to  explain  these 
ditiScult  words,  Olshausen  maintained  that  they  only  applied  to  the  members  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  among  themselves,  and  not  to  the  relations  of  Christians  with  the 
world.  But  would  Jesus  have  entertained  the  supposition  of  strikers  and  thieves 
among  His  own  i)eoplc  ?  Again,  it  has  been  said  that  these  precepts  expressed  noth- 
ing more  than  an  emphatic  condemnation  of  revenge  (Calvin),  that  they  were  hyper- 
boles (Zwingle),  a  portrayal  of  the  general  disposition  which  the  Christian  is  to  ex- 
emplify in  each  individual  case,  according  as  regard  for  God's  glory  and  his  neigh- 
bor's salvation  may  permit  (Tholuck)  ;  which  comes  to.  St.  Augustine's  idea,  that 
these  precepts  concern  the  prceparatio  cordis  rather  than  the  opus  quod  in  apertofit. 
Without  denying  that  there  is  some  truth  in  all  these  explanation?,  we  think  that  they 
do  not  altogether  grasp  the  idea.  Jesus  means  that,  as  far  as  itself  is  cimcerned, 
charity  knows  no  limits  to  its  self-denial.  If,  therefore,  it  ever  puts  a  stop  to  its 
concessions,  it  is  in  no  way  because  it  feels  its  patience  exhausted  ;  true  charity  is 
infinite  as  God  Himself,  whose  essence  it  is.  Its  limit,  if  it  has  any,  is  not  that  which 
its  rights  draw  around  it  ;  it  is  a  limit  like  that  which  the  beautiful  defines  for  itself, 
proceeding  from  within.  It  is  in  charity  thiit  the  disciple  of  Jesus  yields,  when  he 
yields  ;  it  is  in  charity  also  that  he  resists,  when  he  resists.  Charity  has  mo  other 
limit  than  Charity  itself,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  boundless.  "Ziayuv  does  not  properly 
mean,  as  it  is  ordinarily  translated,  the  clieek  (TrapEid),  but  Ihn  jaw  ;  the  blow  given, 

*  Ver.  29.  ii.  D.,  et?  ttji>  for  £~i  Trjv.     Ver.  30.  i4.  B.  omit  tcj  after  ^rairt. 


ciiAK  VI.  :  ;]u-;;i.  ;207 

therefore,  U  not  a  slap,  but  a  heavy  blow.  Consequently  it  is  an  act  of  violence, 
rather  than  of  contempt,  that  is  meant.  The  disciple  who  has  completely  sacrificed 
his  person,  naturally  will  not  refusu  his  clothes.  As  ifj-unov  denotes  the  upper  trar- 
ment,  and  x'tCiv  the  under  garment  or  tunic  which  is  worn  next  the  skin,  it  would 
seem  that  here  also  it  is  an  act  of  violence  tliat  is  meant,  a  tiieft  perpetrated  by  main 
force  ;  the  thief  first  snatches  away  the  uj)per  garment.  jMatthew  presents  the  re- 
verse order:  "He  who  would  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also." 
This  is  because  with  him  it  is  an  affair  of  legal  process  {if  any  man  will  une  thee  at  tlie 
lair).  Tlie  creditor  begins  by  possessing  himself  of  the  coat,  which  is  less  valualjle  ; 
then,  if  he  is  not  sulUcienlly  compensated,  be  claims  tlie  under  garment.  This  ju- 
ridical form  stands  connected  in  Matthew  with  the  article  of  llie  j\Iosaic  code  which 
Jesus  lias  just  cited  :  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.  Matthew,  therefore,  ap- 
pears to  have  preserved  tlie  original  words  of  this  passage.  But  is  it  possible  to  con- 
ceive, that  if  Luke  had  had  ^latthow's  writing  before  him,  or  the  document  made 
use  of  by  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  he  would  have  substituted,  on  his  own  authority, 
a  totally  different  thouglit  from  that  of  his  predecessor  ? 

Yer.  80.  Another  form  of  the  same  thought,  A  Christian,  so  far  as  he  is  con- 
cerned, would  neither  refuse  anything  nor  claim  anything  l)ack.  If,  therefore,  he 
does  either  one  or  the  other,  it  is  always  out  of  charity.  This  sentiment  regulates  his 
refusals  as  well  as  his  gifts,  the  maintenance  as  well  as  the  sacrifice  of  his  riglits. 

'2d.  After  having  descrilied  tlie  applications  of  the  new  principle,  Jesus  gives  a 
formal  cimnciation  of  it,  ver.  81  :  "  And  as  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
ye  also  to  (iiem  likewise."  The  natural  heart  says,  indeed,  with  tlie  Rabbins: 
"  "What  is  disagreeable  to  thj'self,  do  not  do  to  thy  neighbor."  But  charily  saj-s,  by 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  :  "  Whatsoever  thou  desirest  for  thyself,  that  do  to  thy  neighbor." 
Treat  thy  neighbor  In  everything  as  thine  other  self.  It  is  obvious  that  Jesus  only 
means  desires  that  are  reasonable  and  really  salutary.  His  disciples  are  regarded  as 
unable  to  form  any  others  for  themselves.  Ka/,  and,  may  be  rendered  here  by,  in  a 
word.  In  Matthew  this  precept  is  found  in  chap.  7,  toward  the  end  of  the  discourse, 
between  an  exhortation  to  prayer  and  a  call  to  conversion,  consequently  without  any 
natural  connection  with  what  precedes  and  follows.  Notwithstanding  this,  Tholuck 
prefers  the  position  which  it  has  in  ^latlhew.  He  regards  this  saying  as  a  sununarv 
of  the  whole  discourse  (p.  498).  But  is  it  not  manifest  that  it  is  more  naturally  con- 
nected with  a  series  of  precepts  on  charity,  than  with  an  exhortation  to  prayer  ? 

8(7.  The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  charity,  disinterestedness  :  vets.  52-3oa.* 
"  And  if  3'e  love  them  which  love  j'ou,  what  thank  have  ye  ?  For  sinners  also  love 
those  that  love  them.  83.  And  if  ye  do  good  to  them  which  do  good  to  you,  what 
tiiank  have  ye  ?  For  sinners  also  do  even  the  same.  34.  And  if  ye  lend  to  those  of 
whom  ye  hope  to  receive,  what  thank  have  yo  ?  For  sinners  also  lend  to  sinners,  to 
receive  the  same  service,  o'la.  But  love  your  enemies,  and  do  them  good,  and  lend, 
without  hoping  for  anything  again."  Human  love  seeks  an  object  which  is  congenial 
to  itself,  and  from  which,  in  case  of  need,  it  may  obtain  some  return.  There  is 
Jilwnys  somewhat  of  self-interest  in  it.  The  new  love  which  Jesus  proclaims  will  be 
completely  gratuitous  and  disinterested.  For  this  reason  it  will  be  able  to  embrace 
even  an  object  entirely  opposed  to  its  own  nature.     Xilpig  :  the  favor  which  comes 

*  Ter.  33.  !*"*  B.  add  yap  between /cat  and  eav.     ^.  B.  A.  omit  yap  after  Kai.     Ver. 
34.   Instead  of  firro/.a3«i',  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  K.  with  14  Mjj..  i^.  B.  L.   Z,' 
read  '/.ajitLv.     S^.  B.  L.  Z.  omit  yap.     Yer.  85.  i*.  Z.  n.  Syr.,  /i^<5fia  instead  oi  iirjiSsv. 


208  COMMENTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

from  God  ;  in  Matthew  :  rifafxtadov,  whit  matter  of  recompense  ?  'A7TOAau0dv£Lv  tu  laa 
may  signify,  to  withdraw  the  capital  lent,  or  indeed,  to  receive  some  day  the  same 
(service.  The  preposition  ano  wouhl  favor  the  first  sense.  But  the  Alex,  reading 
renders  this  prep,  doubtful.  The  covert  se'fishuess  of  this  conduct  comes  out 
better  in  the  second  sense,  only  to  lend  to  those  who,  it  is  lioped,  will  lend  in 
their  turn.  It  is  a  shrewd  calculation,  selfishness  in  instinctive  accord  wilh  the 
law  of  retalialiou,  utilitarianism  coming  foiward  to  reap  the  fruits  of  moral- 
itJ^  Wliat  fine  irony  there  is  in  this  picture  !  What  a  criticism  on  natural 
kindness  !  The  new  principle  of  wholly  disinterested  charity  comes  out  very  clearly 
(  n  this  dark  background  of  ordinary  benevolence.  This  paradoxical  form  which 
.Jesus  gives  His  precepts  effectually  prevents  all  attempts  of  a  relaxed  morality  to 
weaken  them.  WAijv  (ver.  35) :  "  This  false  love  cast  aside  ;  fur  you,  my  disciples, 
there  only  remains  this."  ' AireA-KilleLv  means  properly,  to  despair.  Mej'er  would 
apply  this  sense  here  :  "  not  despairing  of  divine  remuneration  in  the  dispensation  to 
come."  But  how  can  the  object  of  the  verb  jitjiUv,  nothing,  be  harmonized  with  this 
meaning  and  the  antithesis  in  ver.  34  ?  The  sense  which  the  Syriac  tran.slation  gives, 
reading  probably  with  some  mss.  f^r/f^eva,  no  one,  "'  causing  no  one  to  despair  by  a 
refusal,"  is  grammatically  inadmissible.  The  only  alternative  is  to  give  the  dro  in 
aireAniiiEiv  the  sense  which  this  prep,  already  has  in  ano'AaiSelv ,  hoping  for  nothing  in 
return  from  him  who  asks  of  you. 

Uh.  The  model  and  source  of  the  charity  which  Jesus  has  just  depicted  :  vers.  35& 
and  36.*  "  And  your  reward  shall  be  great,  and  ye  shall  be  the  children  of  the 
Highest :  for  He  is  kind  to  the  unthankful  and  to  the  evil.  30.  Be  ye  therefore 
merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is  merciful."  Having  referred  to  the  love  which  His 
disciples  are  to  surpass,  that  of  man  by  nature  a  sinner,  Jesus  shows  them  what  they 
must  aspire  to  reacli— that  divine  love  wliich  is  the  souice  of  all  gratuitous  and 
disinterested  love.  The  promise  of  a  reward  is  no  contradiction  to  the  perfect  dis- 
interestedness which  Jesus  has  just  made  the  essential  characteristic  of  love.  And, 
in  fact,  the  reward  is  not  a  payment  of  a  nature  foreign  to  the  feeling  rewarded,  the 
prize  of  merit ;  it  is  the  feeling  itself  lirought  to  perfection,  the  full  participation 
in  the  life  and  glory  of  God,  who  is  love  !  Ka/,  and  in  fact.  This  disinterested  love, 
whereby  we  become  like  God,  raises  us  to  the  glorious  condition  of  His  sons  and 
heirs,  like  Jesus  Himself.  The  seventh  beatitude  in  Matthew,  "  Blessed  are  the 
peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God,"  is  probably  a  general 
maxim  taken  from  this  saying.  If  the  imgrateful  and  the  wicked  are  the  object 
of  divine  love,  it  is  because  this  love  is  compassionate  {oiKTipfiuv,  ver.  30).  In  tlie 
wicked  man  God  sees  the  unhappy  man.  Malt.  5  :  45  gives  tliis  same  idea  in  an  en- 
tirely different  form  :  "  For  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good, 
and  sendelh  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust."  How  could  these  two  forms  have 
been  taken  from  the  tame  document  ?  If  Luke  had  known  this  fine  saying  in  Mat- 
thew, would  he  have  suppressed  it  ?  Matthew  concludes  this  train  of  thought  by  a 
general  maxim  similar  to  that  in  Luke  5:86:  "Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  as  your 
Father  in  heaven  is  perfect."  These  two  different  forms  correspond  exactly  with 
the  difference  in  the  body  of  the  discnurse  in  the  two  evangelists.  Matthew  speaks 
of  the  inward  righteousness,  the  perfection  (to  which  one  attains  through  charity)  ; 
Luke,  of  charity  (the  essential  clement  of  perfection  ;  comp.  Col.  3  :  14). 

*  Ver.  30.  ».  B.  D.  L.  Z.  Itpi^ii"''  omit  ow.     J*.  B.  L.  Z.  omit  kui. 


('11  AT.  VI.  :  '.Vi,  ;js.  ;i()y 

ruh.  Lore,  the  principle  of  all  beneficent  moral  action  on  the  world:  vers.  Zl-A^i. — 
Tlitj  tiisci|)les  of  Jesus  are  nol  ouly  called  to  practise  what  is  good  themselves  ;  they 
ate  charged  to  make  it  prevail  iu  the  earth.  They  are,  as  Jesus  says  iu  Matthew, 
iljiniediately  after  the  hraliludes,  tlie  light  of  the  world,  thesultofthe  earth.  Now  they 
can  ouly  e.\ereise  this  salutary  iutlueuce  through  love,  which  mauifests  itself  in  this 
sphere  also  (coinp.  ver.  27),  either  by  what  it  refrains  fiom  (vers.  37-42),  or  by 
ucliou  (vers.  4o— i.1).     Above  all  things,  love  retrains  from  judging. 

Vers.  37  aud  38.*  "And  jiulgo  nol,  and  ye  shall  nut  be  judged  ;  condemn  not, 
and  ye  shall  not  be  condemned  ;  foriiive,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven.  3S.  Give,  and  it 
shall  be  given  unto  you;  good  measure,  piessed  down,  and  shaken  together,  and 
running  over,  shall  men  give  into  your  bosom  ;  for  with  the  same  measure  that  ye 
mete  withal,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again."  There  is  no  reference  here  to  the 
pardon  of  personal  ofieuces  ;  the  reference  is  to  charity,  which,  in  a  general  way, 
refuses  to  judge.  Jesus  evidently  has  in  view  in  this  passage  the  judgment  which 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  assumed  the  right  to  exercise  iu  Israel,  and  which  their 
harshness  and  arrogance  rendered  more  injurious  than  useful,  as  was  seen  in  the 
effect  it  produced  on  the  publicans  and  other  such  persons  (5  :  30,  l.o  :  28-30).  Kal 
inilicates  the  transition  to  a  new  but  analogous  subject;  And  further.  Kpiveif,  to 
judge,  is  not  equivalent  to  comlemn  ;  it  means  generally  to  set  one's  self  up  as  a  judge 
of  the  moral  worth  of  another.  But  since,  wherever  this  disposition  prevails,  judg- 
ment is  usually  exercised  iu  an  unkindly  spirit,  the  word  is  certainly  employed  here 
in  an  unfavorable  sense.  It  is  strengthened  by  the  following  term  :  condemn,  to 
condemn  pitilessly,  and  without  taking  into  account  any  reasons  for  foibearance. 
'k-^ii/.vetv,  to  alMolve,  does  not  refer,  therefore,  to  the  pardon  of  a.  personal  offence  ;  it 
is  the  anxiety  of  love  to  find  a  neighbor  innocent  rather  than  guilty,  to  excuse  rather 
than  to  condemn.  The  Lord  does  not  forbid  all  moral  judgments  on  the  conduct  of 
our  neighbor  ;  this  would  contradict  many  other  passages,  for  example,  1  Cjr.  5  :  13  : 
"  D  J  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within  V"  The  true  judgment,  inspired  by  love,  isiui- 
plied  in  ver.  42.  What  Jesus  desires  to  banish  from  the  society  of  His  disciples  is  the 
judging  spirit,  the  tendency  to  place  our  faculty  of  moral  appreciation  at  the  service 
of  natural  malignity,  or  more  simply  still,  judging  for  the  pleasure  of  judging.  The 
reward  promised  :  not  to  be  judged  or  condemned,  to  be  sent  aicay  absolved,  may  refer 
either  to  this  world  or  the  other,  to  the  conduct  of  men  or  of  God.  The  latter  is  the 
more  natural  meaning,  it  enforces  itself  in  the  next  precept.  It  is  probably  from  here 
that  the  fifth  beatitude  in  Matthew  has  been  taken  :  "  Blessed  are  the  merciful ;  for 
they  shall  obtain  mere}'. " 

With  a  disposition  to  absolve  those  that  are  accused  is  naturally  connected  that 
of  giving,  that  is  to  say,  of  rendering  service  to  all,  even  to  the  greatest  sinners. 
This  idea  is  introduced  here  only  as  an  accessory  to  the  other.  Theie  is  some  feel- 
ing in  these  successive  imperatives,  and  a  remarkable  affluence  of  expression  iu  the 
promise.  Some  one  has  sad  :  "  Give  with  a  full  hand  to  God,  and  lie  will  give 
■with  a  full  hand  to  you."  The  idea  of  this  boundless  liberality  of  God  is  forcibly 
expressed  by  the  accumulation  of  epithets.  The  measure,  to  which  Jesus  alludes, 
is  one  for  solids  (jjressed,  shaken  together) ;  the  epithet,  running  over,  is  not  at  all  op- 

*  Ver.  37.  A.  C.  A.  If"<i.,  iva  uri  instead  of  ^at  ov  ^ir).  Ver.  38.  ».  B.  D.  L.  Z.. 
u  yap  fierpu  instead  of  tu  yap  avru  perpu  u,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  all  the 
other  Mss. 


210  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

posed  to  this.  The  expression,  into  your  bosom,  refers  to  the  form  of  the  oriental 
garment,  which  allows,  of  things  being  heai^ed  together  in  the  laige  pockbt-shaped 
fold  above  the  girdle  (Ruth  3  :  15).  The  plur.  6ucovaLv,  they  will  give  corresponds 
to  the  Fieuch  mdef.  pron.  on;  it  denotes  the  instruments  of  divine  muniticence, 
whoever  they  may  be  (13  :  20,  48).  This  precept  is  found,  in  very  nearly  the  same 
terms,  in  Mall.,  1  -.1  et  seq.,  imraedialely  following  an  exhorlalion  to  confidence 
in  Providence,  and  before  au  invilalion  to  piayer— in  a  context,  Ihertfore,  with 
wliich  it  has  no  connection.     In  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  all  is  closely  connected. 

Vers.  39  and  40.  "  And  He  spake  a  parable  unto  them.  Can  the  blind  lead  the 
blind  ?  Shall  they  not  both  fall  into  the  ditch  ?  40.  The  disciple  is  not  above  his 
master:  but  every  one  that  is  perfect  shall  be  as  his  master."  Mejer,  Bleek,  and 
Iloltzmann  can  see  no  natural  connection  between  this  little  parable  and  tlie  preced- 
ing precept.  The  form,  He  said  to  them  also,  seems  of  itself  to  indicate  an  inteirup- 
tion,  and  to  betray  the  interpolation  of  a  passage  foieign  to  the  original  context.  Is 
not,  however,  the  figure  of  a  blind  man  leading  another  man  (ver.  39)  evidently  con- 
nected with  that  of  the  man  who,  while  he  has  a  l)eain  in  his  own  eye,  wants  to  take 
a  straw  out  of  his  brother's  eye  (ver.  41)  ?  And  who  can  fail  to  perceive  tlie  count  c- 
tion  between  the  idea  contained  in  this  last  illustration  and  the  precept  which 
precedes  (vers.  37,  38)  respecting  judgments  ?  A  man's  presuming  to  correct  his 
neighbor,  without  correcting  himself -is  not  this  altogether  characteiistic  of  that 
mania  for  judging  others  which  Jesus  has  just  forbidden  ?  The  whole  passage  (vers. 
37-42)  is  just,  therefore,  a  piece  of  consecutive  instruction  respecting  judgments. 
Jesus  continues  the  contrast  between  that  normal  and  salutary  judgment  which  lie 
expects  from  His  disciples,  in  regard  to  the  world,  based  partly  on  the  love  of  one's 
neighbor,  and  partly  on  unsparing  judgment  of  one's  self,  and  that  injurious  judgment 
which  the  Pharisees,  severe  toward  others,  and  altogether  infatuated  with  themselves, 
were  exercising  in  the  midst  of  Jewish  society.  The  sole  result  of  the  ministry  of 
the  Pharisees  was  to  fit  tlieir  disciples  for  the  same  perdition  as  tliemselves  !  Jesus 
prays  His  disciples  not  to  repeat  such  achievements  in  the  order  of  things  which  He 
is  about  to  establish.  In  Matt.  15  :  14  and  23  :  15,  16  we  have  some  precisely  simihir 
words  addressed  to  the  Pharisees.  We  are  not  mistaken,  therefore,  in  our  applica- 
tion of  this  figure.  As  to  the  phrase.  And  He  saith  to  them  also  (ver.  39),  comp.  6  :  5. 
This  break  in  the  discourse  represents  a  moment's  pause  to  collect  His  thoughts. 
Jesus  seeks  for  an  illustration  that  will  impress  His  hearers  with  the  deplorable  con- 
sequences of  passing  judgment  on  others,  when  it  is  done  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Pharisees.  'Oihp/elv,  to  point  out  the  way,  combines  the  two  notions  of  correction  and 
instruction.  The  disciple,  in  so  far  as  he  is  a  disciple,  not  being  able  to  excel  his 
master  (ver.  40),  it  follows  that  the  disciple  of  a  Pharisee  will  not  be  able  at  l)est  to 
do  more  than  equal  his  master  ;  that  is  to  say,  fall  into  the  same  ditch  with  him. 
Yer.  40  justifies  this  idea.  Here  we  see  what  will  happen  to  the  whole  people,  if 
they  remain  under  the  direction  of  the  Pharisees.  The  further  they  advance  in  the 
school  of  such  masters,  the  nearer  they  will  come  ...  to  perdition.  The  pro- 
verbial saying,  ver.  40a,  is  used  in  Matt.  10  :  24,  25  and  John  15  :  20  in  this  sense  : 
'IThe  servants  of  Jesus  must  not  expect  to  be  treated  belter  than  their  Master.  In 
Luke  22  :  27  and  John  13  :  16  it  is  applied  to  the  humility  which  befits  the  servant  of 
such  a  Master.  It  is  obvious  that  Jesus  made  various  applications  of  these  general 
maxims.  Whatever,  then,  modern  criticism  may  think,  the  context  of  Luke  is  un- 
exceptionable.    How  can  Weizsiicker    so  disregard  this  connection  as  actually  to 


ciiAi'.   VI.  :  41-45.  211 

make  vcr.  39  Ihc  comrncnccment  of  u  new  part,  "  the  sccoutl  secti.">a  of  Iho  dis- 
course !"  (p.  loo). 

Vers.  41  niul  43.  "  And  wliy  bcholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye, 
but  peroeivest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye  ?  42.  Either  how  canst  tliou  say 
to  tliy  brother.  Brollicr,  let  me  pull  out  the  mote  that  is  in  tliino  eye,  when  tiiou  tliy- 
sclf  bt-hohlost  not  the  beatn  lliat  is  in  thine  own  eye?  Thou  hypocrite,  cast  out  first 
tlic  l)Lani  out  of  tliine  own  eye,  and  tlien  shalt  thou  see  cleatl}'  to  pull  out  the  mole 
tlial  is  in  thy  brother's  eye."  In  order  to  be  useful  in  correctiuji  another,  a  man 
nnist  begin  by  correcting  himself.  Love,  when  sincere,  never  acts  otherwise.  Be-- 
yoiid  the  limits  of  tlii.-s  restraint,  all  judgment  is  the  fruit  of  presumption  and  blind- 
ness. Sucli  was  tlie  judgment  of  the  Pharisees.  The  mote,  the  bit  of  straw  whith 
has  slipped  into  the  eye,  lepresents  a  defect  of  secondary  importance.  A  beam  in  the 
eye  is  a  ludicrous  image  which  ridicule  uses  to  describe  a  ridiculous  proceeding — a 
man's  assuming,  as  the  Pharisee  did,  to  direct  the  moral  education  of  his  less  vicious 
neighbor,  when  he  was  himself  saturated  with  avarice,  i)ride.  and  other  odious  vices. 
Such  a  man  is  rightly  termed  a  hypocrite  ;  for  if  it  was  hatred  of  evil  that  inspired 
his  judgment,  would  he  not  begin  by  showing  this  feeling  in  an  unsparing  judgment 
of  himself?  Ordinaiily,  (im.J.Vi/'fJ  is  understood  in  this  sense:  Thou  wilt  be  able 
lo  think  to,  to  see  to  .  .  ,  But  can  JAtrreu',  to  see,  be  used  in  tiiis  connection  in 
an  abstract  sense  ?  The  connection  between  e/vi3aA/.e,  takeaway,  and  6ia3Ae-ijieii,  thou 
shalt  see,  shoidd  suffice  to  prove  the  contrary:  "Take  away  the  beam  which  takes 
away  thy  sight,  and  then  thou  shalt  see  cleaily  to  ,  .  ."  The  \{irb  ^laS'^Jireiv,  to 
sec  through,  to  see  distinctly,  is  only  fouml  in  this  passage,  and  in  its  parallel  in  Mat- 
thew, in  all  the  X.  T.  This  has  been  held  to  prove  tiiat  the  two  evangelists  both 
employed  the  same  Greek  document.  But  characteristic  expressions  such  as  these 
d.Jubtless  originated  in  the  first  rendering  of  the  oral  tradition  into  the  Greek  tongue  ; 
precepts  tlien  took  a  fixed  form,  certain  features  of  which  were  preserved  in  the 
preaching,  and  thence  passed  into  our  Syn. 

In  vers.  43-45,  the  idea  of  teaching,  which  is  perceptible  in  ver.  40,  takes  the 
place  altogether  of  the  idea  of  judging,  witli  which  it  is  closely  connected. 

Vers.  4o-4.5.*  "  For  a  good  tree  biingeth  not  forth  corrupt  fruit  ;  neither  doth  a 
corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.  44.  For  every  tree  is  known  by  his  own  fruit  : 
for  of  thorns men  do  not  gather  figs,  nor  of  a  bramble-bush  gather  they  grapes." 
la  order  that  our  words  may  have  a  good  influence  on  our  neighbor,  we  must  be  good 
ourselves.  In  this  passage,  therefore,  the  fruits  of  the  tree  are  neither  the  moral 
conduct  of  the  individual  who  teaches,  nor  his  doctrines.  They  are  the  results  of 
bis  labor  in  others.  In  vain  ■\\  ill  a  proud  man  preach  humility,  or  a  sellish  man 
charity;  the  injurious  influence  of  example  will  paralyze  the  efforts  of  their  words. 
The  corrupt  tree  (nap-dv)  is  a  tree  infected  with  canker,  whose  juices  are  incapable  cf 
producing  palatable  fruit.  The  connection  between  vers.  43  and  4Ari  is  this  :  "  This 
principle  is  so  true,  that  every  one,  without  hesitation,  infers  the  nature  of  a  tree 
from  its  fiuits."  In  Palestine  there  are  often  seen,  behind  hedges  of  thorns  and 
brambles,  fig-trees  completely  garlanded  with  the  climbing  tendrils  of  vine  branches.f 

*  Vcr.  43.  ii.  B.  L.  Z.  and  several  Mnn.  add  ~n2.iv  after  ovih.  Ver.  45.  S^.  B. 
omit  nuTov  after  KnpSinS.  J^.  B  D.  L.  omit  avOpuKoi  after  ■Kovrjaoi.  ^,  B.  D.  L.  Z, 
omit  the  WOids  Oijoavpov  rtii  ixnfxhni  nvrov. 

t  Kourad  Furrer,  "  die  Bedeulung  der  biblischen  Geogra[)hie  fiir  die  bibl.  Exe- 
gese,"  p.  34. 


2VZ  COMMEXTAIIY    OX   ST.  LUKE. 

Ver.  4")  gives  expression  to  tlie  general  principle  on  which  the  whole  of  the  preceding 
rests.  A  man's  word  is  the  most  direct  commuuicatiou  of  his  being.  If  a  man  de- 
sires to  reform  others  l:y  his  word,  he  must  refoim  himself  ;  then  his  word  will  chauge 
the  world.  Jesus  Himself  succeeded  in  depositing  a  germ  of  gocdness  in  the  world 
by  Ilis  word  alone,  because  He  was  a  perfectly  good  man.  It  is  for  His  disciples  to 
coutmue  His  work  by  this  method,  which  is  the  antipodes  of  that  of  the  Phaii.sees. 
An  analogous  passage  is  found  in  Matthew,  at  the  end  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(7  :  15-20).  There  Jesus  is  exhorting  His  hearers  to  beware  of  false  prophets,  wlio 
'  betray  their  real  character  by  tlieir  evil  fruits.  These  false  prophets  may  indeed  be, 
in  this  precept,  as  in  that  of  Luke,  the  Pharisees  (comp.  our  ver.  26).  But  their 
fruits  are  certaini}',  in  Matthew,  their  moral  conduct,  their  pride,  avaiice,  and  hypoc- 
risy, and  not,  as  in  Luke,  the  effects  produced  by  their  ministr3^  On  the  other  hand, 
we  find  a  passage  in  Matthew  (13  :  C3-3o)  still  more  like  ours.  As  it  belongs  to  a 
warning  against  blaspheming  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  fruits  of  the  tree  are  evidently,  as 
in  Luke,  the  words  themselves,  in  so  far  as  they  are  good  or  bad  in  their  nature  and 
in  their  elTect  on  those  who  receive  them.  From  this,  is  it  not  evident  tiiat  this  j^as- 
sage  IS  the  true  parallel  to  ours,  and  that  the  passage  which  Matthew  has  introduced 
into  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  an  importation,  occasioned  probably  by  the  employ- 
ment of  the  same  image  (that  of  the  trees  and  their  fruits)  in  both  ?  Thus  Jesus  has 
risen  by  degrees  from  the  conditions  of  the  Christian  life  (the  beatitudes)  to  the  life 
itself  ;  fust  of  nil  to  its  principle,  then  to  its  action  on  the  world.  He  has  made  His 
renewed  disciples  instruments  for  the  renewal  of  humanity.  It  now  only  remains 
for  Him  to  bring  this  inaugural  discourse  to  a  close. 

Third  part  of  the  discourse  :  vers.  46-49.  The  Sanction.— Here  we  have  the  con- 
clusion, and,  so  to  speak,  the  peroration  of  the  discourse.  The  Lord  enjoins  His  dis- 
ciples, for  the  sake  of  their  own  welfare,  to  put  in  practice  the  new  principle  of  con- 
duct which  lie  has  just  laid  down. 

Ver.  46.  "  And  why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  which  I  say." 
This  saying  proves  that  Jesus  was  already  recognized  as  Lord  by  a  huge  part  of 
tills  multitude,  but  that  even  then  He  would  have  been  glad  to  find  in  many  of  those 
who  saluted  Him  by  this  title  a  more  scrupulous  fidelity  to  the  law  of  chaiity.  This 
•warning  is  connected,  doubtless,  with  the  preceding  context,  by  this  idea  :  "  Do  not 
be  guiltj',  in  the  dispensaiion  now  commencing,  of  the  same  hypocrisy  as  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  have  been  guilty  of  in  that  which  is  coming  to  an  end  ;  they  render 
homage  to  Jehovah,  and,  at  the  same  time,  perpetually  transgress  His  law.  Do  not 
deal, with  my  word  in  this  way."  The  same  idea  is  found  in  Matthew,  at  the  cor- 
responding place  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (7  :  21  et  seq.),  but  under  that  abstract 
and  sententious  form  already  observed  in  the  Beatitudes  :  "  Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me  :  Lord,  Lord,"  etc.  In  this  passage  in  Matthew,  Jesus  expressly  claims  to 
be  the  Messiah  and  Supreme  Judge.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  Lord,  Lord, 
of  Luke. 

Vers.  47-49.*  "  Whosoever  cometh  to  me,  and  hcareth  my  sayings,  and  doeth 
them,  I  will  show  you  to  whom  he  is  like  :  48.  He  is  like  a  man  which  built  au 
house,  and  digged  deep,  and  laid  the  foundation  on  a  rock  :  and  when  the  flood  arose, 
the  stream  beat  vehemently  upon  that  house,  and  couid  not  shake  it  ;  for  it  was 

*  Ver.  48.  i^.  B.  L.  Z.,  (5m  to  KaTiu?  oiKodojuTjaOai  avTTjv  instead  of  rsOefie^iiuro  yap  s-ai 
TT)v  nerpav.  wliich  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  all  the  other  authorities.  Ver. 
49.   (J.  and  some  Mnn..  oii\0('iofAovTi  instead  of  OLKodojirjaapTc, 


CHAP.   VI.  :  46-49.  5ii3 

foundeil  upon  a  rock.  49.  But  he  that  heareth,  and  doeth  not,  is  like  a  man  that, 
witlijut  a  foundation,  built  a  house  upon  the  earth  ;  ugaiust  which  the  stream 
did  beat  vehemrntly,  and  ininiedintuly  it  fell  ;  uud«  the  ruin  of  tbat  house  whs 
>  great."  Tlie  two  evaugelisls  coincide  in  this  closing  illuslraliuu.  On  the 
shelving  lauds  which  surround  the  Lake  of  Genuesareth,  there  are  some 
hills  on  which  the  rock  is  covered  with  only  a  ihin  layer  of  earth  (>7>,  Luke)  or 
sand  ('V/^o?,  Mai.lhew).  A  prudent  man  digs  through  this  niovable  soil, 
digs  deep  down  (/dKoi/'e  /•«'  et3u0vve),  even  into  the  rock,  upon  and  in  wliicli  (iirl  with 
the  accusative)  he  lays  the  foundation.  Luke  only  meulinns  one  cause  of  destruc- 
tion, the  waterspout  (TrXj'/fjfivpa),  that  breaks  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain  and 
creates  the  torrents  which  carry  away  the  layer  of  eaith  and  sand,  aud  with  it  the 
building  that  is  not  founded  on  the  rock.  Matthew  adds  the  hurricane  {ave/xoi)  that 
ordinarily  accompanies  these  great  atmospheiic  disturbances,  and  ovei  throws  the 
buildi'ig  which  the  torrent  undermines.  Though  the  dillereuccs  between  these  two 
descriptions  in  ^latthew  and  Luke  are  for  the  most  part  insignificant,  thej'  aie  too 
numerous  to  suppose  that  botli  couid  have  been  taken  from  the  same  document.  To 
buiid  on  the  earth  is  to  admit  the  Lord's  will  merely  into  the  understanding,  that 
most  superficial  and  impersonal  part  of  a  man's  silf,  while  closing  the  conscience 
against  Him,  and  wilhhulding  the  acquiescence  of  the  will,  which  is  the  really  per- 
sonal element  within  us.  The  triid  of  our  sjnrilual  building  is  brought  about  by 
temptation,  persecution,  and,  last  of  all,  by  judgment.  Its  overthrow  is  accom- 
plished by  unbelief  here  below,  and  by  condemnation  from  above.  The  Alex,  read- 
ing, because  it  had  brcn  icell  built {var.  48),  is  to  be  preferre  I  to  that  of  llie  T.  'R.,for  it 
teas  founded  on  a  rock,  whit  h  is  taken  from  Matthew.  A  single  lost  soul  is  a  great 
ruin  in  the  eyes  of  God.  Jesus,  in  closing  his  discourse,  leaves  His  hearers  under 
the  impression  of  this  solemn  thought.  Each  of  them,  while  listening  to  this  last 
word,  might  tliink  that  he  heard  the  crash  of  the  falling  edifice,  and  .say  within 
himself  :  This  disaster  will  be  mine  if  1  prove  hypocritical  or  inconsistent. 

TIic  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  therefore,  as  Weiz-^ilcker  has  clearly  seen,  is  :  the 
inauiiuration  of  the  new  law.  The  order  of  the  discourse,  according  to  the  two  doc- 
uments, is  this:  Jesus  add  re.^ses  His  hearers  as  btlongiug  to  a  cla.ss  of  people  who, 
even  according  to  tlie  Old  Tcstamjiit,  have  the  greatest  need  of  heavenly  C'mpen.sa- 
tions.  Treating  them  as  (liscii)ies,  either  becau.'.e  they  were  already  attached  to  Him 
as  such,  or  in  tiieir  character  as  vuluntary  hearers.  He  regards  tins  inidience,  brought 
togL-ther  without  previous  preparation,  as  representing  liie  new  onier  of  things,  and 
promulgates  befoie  this  new  Israel  the  |)rinciple  of  the  perfect  hiw.  Then,  substi- 
tuting His  disciples  for  the  doctors  of  the  ancient  economy,  He  points  cut  lo  lluiu 
tlie  Sole  contlition  on  which  they  will  be  able  to  accomplish  in  the  world  the  glorious 
■work  which  He  confides  to  them.  Lastly,  He  urges  iheni,  in  the  name  of  all  they 
hold  most  precious,  to  fulfil  tiiis  condiiion  by  making  their  life  ngree  vvilh  their  pro- 
fession, in  order  that,  when  tested  bj'  the  iudgment,'they  may  not  come  lo  ruin.  In 
what  respect  d.>es  this  discourse  lack  unity  and  regular  progression  '?  How  can 
"Weizsacker  .say  that  these  precepts,  in  liUke,  are  for  the  most  part  thrown  foirether, 
without  connection,  and  detached  from  their  n:itural  conlcxl  V*  It  is  in  ^Matthew 
rather,  as  Wciz^ar'ker,  among  others,  acknowledges,  that  we  find  foreign  elements 
interwoven  with  the  tissue  of  ihe  discourse  ;  they  are  easily  perceiveii,  for  they 
break  the  connection,  and  tiie  association  of  ideas  which  has  occasioned  the  inter- 
polation is  obvious.  Thus,  vers.  23-20,  reconciliation  [apropoa  of  hatred  and  mur- 
der) ;  vers.  2U,  30,  a  precept,  which  is  found  elsewhere  in  Matthew  itself  (18  :  8,  9) ; 

"'•■  "  Uatcrsuchungcn,"  p.  154. 


214  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

vers.  31  and  32  (a  passage  which  is  found  19  :  3-9)  ;  G  :  7-15,  the  Lurd's  Prayer,  an 
evident  interruption  in  His  treafment  of  the  lliree  principal  Pharisaic  virtues  (aims, 
vers.  2^  ;  prayer,  vers,  u,  6  ;  fasting,  vers.  lG-18)  ;  6  :  24  (if  nut  even  19)  -34,  a  pas- 
sage on  providence  (in  connection  with  the  avarice  of  tlie  Pharisees)  ;  7  :  0-11,  and  13, 
14,  precepts,  simply  juxtaposJled  ;  7  :  l.")-20,  a  passage  tor  which  12  :  33-35  should 
be  substituted  ;  lastly,  7  :  22,  23,  where  allusion  is  made  to  facts  which  lie  out  of  tlie 
norizou  of  that  early  period.  It  is  remarkable  that  these  passages,  whose  foreitrn 
cliaracter  is  proved  by  th(!  context  of  Matthew,  are  the  very  passages  that  are  found 
dispersed  over  dilferent  places  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  wheie  thtir  appropiiateness  in 
easily  verified.  The  aulhor  of  the  first  Gospel  could  not  be  blamed  for  this  conibi- 
nalion  of  heterogeneous  elements  wiihin  one  and  the  same  outline,  xmless  his  compi- 
lalion  of  the  discourse  had  been  made  from  the  first  with  an  historical  aim.  But  if 
we  admit,  as  we  are  authorized  by  the  testimony  of  Papias  to  admit,  that  this  dis- 
course bc;longed  originally'  to  a  colkclion  of  discourses  compiled  with  a  didactic  or 
liturgical  aim,  and  that  the  aulhor  wanted  to  give  a  somewhat  complete  exposition 
of  the  new  moral  law  proclaimed  by  Jesus,  there  is  nothing  more  natural  than  tliis 
agglomerating  process.  It  is  evident  that  the  autlior  founti,  in  this  way,  a  means  of 
producing  in  his  readers,  just  as  any  other  evangelist,  the  thrilling  impression  which 
the  word  of  .Jesus  had  made  on  the  hearts  of  His  hearers  (Matt.  7  :  28,  29).  The  way 
in  which  these  two  versions  stand  related  to  each  other,  will  not  allow  of  therr  being 
deduced  from  a  proto-Mark  as  a  common  source,  according  to  Holtzmann  and 
Weizsacker.  And  besides,  how,  in  this  case,  did  it  happen  that  this  discourse  was 
omitted  in  our  canonical  Mark?  The  species  of  logopliobia  which  Ihey  attribute  to 
him,  in  order  to  explain  this  fact,  is  incompatible  with  j\Iark  9  :  39-51,  and  13. 

A  religious  party  has  made  a  party-banner  of  this  discorrrse.  According  to  them, 
this  discourse  is  a  summary  of  the  leaching  of  Jesus,  who  merely  spiiitualized  the 
Mosaic  law.  But  how  are  we  to  harmonize  with  this  view  the  passages  in  which 
Jesus  makes  attachment  to  His  person  the  very  centre  of  the  new  righteousness 
(for  my  mice.  Matt.  5  :  11  ;  for  the  srd'£  of  the  Son.  of  man,  Luke  6  :  22),  and  those  in 
which  He  announces  Himself  as  the  Final  and  Supreme  Judge  (Malt.  7:21-23, 
comp.  with  Luke  (5  :  46  :  Lord,  Lnrd!)'l  The  true  view  of  tlie  i-eligious  import  of 
this  discourse,  is  that  which  Gess  has  ex[)ressed  in  these  well-wtighed  words  :  "  The 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  describes  that  earnest  piety  which  no  one  can  cuilivjile  wfth- 
oiit  an  increasing  feeling  of  the  need  of  redemption,  by  means  of  which  the  right- 
eousness required  by  such  piety  may  at  last  be  realized"  (p.  6). 

/  2.  The  Centurion's  Servant:  7:1-10. — This  was  the  most  striking  instance  of 
faith  that  .Tesus  had  met  with  up  to  this  time  ;  and  what  was  more  astonishing,  He 
was  indebted  for  this  surprise  to  a  Gentile.  Jesus  instantly  perceives  the  deep  sig- 
nificance of  this  unexpected  incident,  and  cautioirsly  indicates  it  in  ver.  9,  while  in 
Matt.  8  :  11,  12  it  is  expressed  with  less  reserve.  We  should  have  expected  the  reverse, 
according  to  the  dogmatic  prepossessions  which  criticism  imputes  to  our  evangelists. 
It  is  obliged,  therefore,  to  have  recourse  to  the  hypothesis  of  subsequent  interpolations. 
This  cure  is  connected,  in  Matthew  as  well  as  in  Luke,  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  This  resemblance  in  no  way  proves,  as  some  think,  a  common  written 
source.  For,  1.  The  two  passages  are  separated  in  JIatthew  by  the  healing  of  the 
leper,  which  Luke  assigns  to  another  time  ;  2.  The  narratives  of  the  two  evangtlisls 
present  very  considerable  differences  of  detail  ;  lastl}\  3.  Theie  was  nothing  to  pre- 
vent certain  groups  of  narrative,  more  or  less  fixed,  being  formed  in  the  oral  teach- 
ing of  the  gospel,  which  passed  in  this  way  into  our  written  narratives.  As  to  Mark, 
he  omits  this  miracle,  an  omission  difficult  to  account  for,  if  he  copied  Matthew  and 
Luke  (Bleek),  and  equally  difficult  if,  with  them,  he  derived  his  narrative  frcra  an 
original  Mark  (Ewald  and  Holtzmann).  Hollzmann  (p.  78),  with  Ewald,  thinks  that 
"  if  he  cut  out  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  he  might  easily  omit  also  the  passage  which 
follows,  and  which  opens  a  new  section."     But  on  other  occasions  it  is  asserted  that 


en  A  I'.   VII.  :  1-lU.  215 

]\rark  purposely  omits  the  discourses,  to  make  room  for  facts.     Now,  are  we  not  here 
couceined  with  a  fad  V    BIclU  dots  not  evtn  attempt  to  explain  this  omission. 

Vers.  1-Ga.*  The  First  Deputation. — The  Ale.x.  reading  t7rf.'(5>;,  since  assuredly,  has 
no  meaning.  There  is  something  solemn  in  these  expressions  :  irr'/.Tiauae,  had  fulfilled, 
and  Ws  TuS  uKoai,  in  tlie  cars  of  the  people.  The  pniclamation  whicli  had  just  taken 
place  is  given  as  something  complete.  The  circumstance  that  this  miracle  took  place; 
just  when  Jesus  returned  to  Capernaum,  after  this  discour.se,  was  remembeied  in  tlic 
traditional  account,  and  has  been  faithfully  preserved  in  our  two  evangelical  nana- 
lives.  The  centurion  (ver.  2)  was  probably  a  Romau  soldier  in  the  service  of  llerod  ; 
he  was  a  proselyte,  and  had  even  manifested  special  zeal  on  behalf  of  his  ne'.v  faith 
(ver.  5).  Instead  of  6ov/.o;,  a  xlcux,  ]\Iatthew  says  ira/?,  a  word  which  may  signify 
either  a  son  or  a  sertxint,  and  which  Luke  employs  iuthe  latter  sense  at  ver.  7.  Bletk 
and  llollzmanu  prefer  the  meaning  son  in  Matthew,  because  otherwise  it  would  be 
necessary  to  admit  that  the  centurion  had  only  one  slave."  As  if  a  man  could  not 
say  :  "  My  servant  is  sick,"  though  he  had  seveial  servants  !  Tiie  meaning  sermnt 
is  more  probable  in  Matthew,  because  it  better  explains  the  reluctance  which  the  cen- 
turion feels  to  trouble  the  Lord.  If  it  had  been  his  sun.  ho  would  doubtless  have 
been  bolder.  Tlie  maladj''  must  have  been,  according  to  ]\Iatthew's  description,  ver. 
6.  acute  rheumatism.  And  whatever  criticism  may  say,  this  malady,  when  it  affects 
certain  organs,  the  heart  for  instance,  may  become  luortcd.  The  wotds  :  inho  icris" 
rer>/  dear  U>  him,  serve  to  explain  why  a  step  so  important  as  a  deputation  of  the  eld- 
ers should  have  been  taken.  The  latter  are  doubtless  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  maintaiu  order  in  the  congregation.  They  could  more  easily 
explain  to  Jesus  the  honorable  facts  which  made  in  favor  of  the  centurion,  than  he 
could  himself. 

Vers.  G^S.f  The  Second  Deputation. — The  centurion,  from  his  house,  sees  Jesus 
approaching  with  His  retinue  of  disciples.  The  veneration  with  which  this  mysteri- 
ous person  inspires  him  makes  him  afraid  even  to  receive  Hmi  under  his  roof  ;  he 
sends,  therefore,  a  second  deputation.  Strauss  sees  in  this  a  contradiction  of  his 
former  proceeding.  But  it  was  simply  a  deeper  humility  and  stronger  faith  that  had 
dictateil  this  course.  'I/carof  here  denotes  moral  worth,  as  in  3  :  16  and  elsev.-here. 
Faith  vies  with  humility  in  this  man.  The  expression  e'lnk  hr/u,  say  in  a  word,  sug- 
gests this  means  m  preference  to  His  coming  in  person.  In  Matthew's  narrative  all 
these  proceedings  are  united  in  a  single  act ;  the  centurion  comes  himself  to  tell 
Jesus  of  the  sickness,  and  to  the  offer  of  Jesus  to  visit  his  house,  returns  the  answer 
which  we  find  in  Luke  5  :  8.:j:  Bleek  regards  the  details  in  Luke  as  an  ampliticati^n 
of  the  original  narrative  ;  others  consider  Matthew's  account  an  abridgment  of  Luke's. 
But  how  could  Luke  exaggerate  in  this  way  the  plain  statement  of  Matthew,  or  Mat- 
thew mangle  the  description  of  Luke 'i*  Our  evangelists  were  earnest  believers.  All 
that  tradition  had  literally  preserved  was  the  characteristic  reply  of  the  centurion  (ver. 
8),  and  our  Lord's  expression  of  admiration  (ver  9).     The  historical  outline  had  beec 

*  Yer.  1.  A.  B.  C.  X.  IT.,  cTvei^^  instead  of  eirei  6e. 

f  Ver.  6.  B.  L.,  eKnrovTapxyi  instead  of  eKarovrapxag,  i^*  B.  omit  TrpoS  avTov. 
Ver.  7.   B.  L.,  inOTjTu  instead  of  KcOrifjErat. 

X  What  can  be  more  natural  than  the  reporting  that  as  said  by  one's  self  which 
is  Faid  by  an  authorized  deputation,  where  the  object  of  the  writer  is  to  condense? 
This  is  what  JMailhew  has  done.  "  lie  does  that  which  is  done,  though  it  be  done 
bv  anotlier  for  him."  See  a  parallel  case  in  3IaU.  20:20,  compared  with  ]\lark 
10  :  ;J5.— J.  II. 


316  COMMENTAEY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

created  •with  greater  freedom  in  the  oral  narration.  This  explains  in  a  very  natrsral 
manner  (he  difFereuce  between  our  two  narratives.  Although  he  was  only  an  ordinary 
man  (ufOpuTroS).  and  a  man  in  a  dependent  position,  the  centurion  had  some  subordi- 
nates through  whom  he  could  act  without  always  going  himself  to  the  place.  Could  not 
.Jesus,  who  stood  far  above  him  in  the  hierarchy  of  being,  having  the  powers  of  the 
invisible  world  at  His  disposal,  make  use,  if  lie  pleased,  of  a  similar  power?  We 
may  compare  here  .Jesus'  own  words  respecting  the  angels  which  ascend  and  descend 
(.John  1  :  52).  How  are  we  to  explain  the  existence  of  such  faltk  in  this  man  V  We 
must  bear  in  mind  the  words  cf  ver.  3:  having  heard  of  Jesus.  The  fame  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  had  reached  even  him.  There  was  one  cure  especially,  which 
Jesus  had  wrought  at  Capernaum  itself,  and  since  Cana,  which  presented  a  re- 
markable similarity  to  that  which  the  centurion  besought — the  cure  of  the  nobleman's 
son  (John  4).  Perhaps  his  knowledge  of  this  miracle  is  the  most  natural  mode  of 
explaining  the  faith  implied  in  the  message  which  he  addresses  to  Jesus  by  the  mouth 
of  his  fr'euds.  Tlie  expression,  sucIl  faith,  refers  not  to  the  request  for  a  cure,  but 
for  a  cure  without  the  aid  of  His  bodily  presence.  It  was,  as  it  were,  a  paroxysm  of 
faith  ! 

Vers.  9  and  10. ''^  The  Cure. — The  severe  words  respecting  the  Jews,  which  in 
!Mat(hew  .Jesus  adds  to  the  praise  bestowed  on  the  centurion's  faith,  seem  to  prove 
that  Matthew  makes  use  of  a  different  source  of  information  from  Luke's.  These 
words  are  found,  in  fact,  in  Luke  in  a  totally  different  connection  (13  :  28),  at  a  more 
advanced  period,  when  they  are  certainly  more  appropriate. 

Several  ancient  and  moJern  critics  identify  this  cure  with  that  of  the  nobleman's 
son  (John  4).  Tlie  differences,  however,  are  considerable  :  f  here  we  liave  a  soldier 
of  Gentile  origin,  there  a  courtier  of  Jewish  origin  ;  here  tiie  jdace  is  Capernaum, 
there  Cana  ;  here  we  have  a  man  who  in  his  humility  is  reluctant  that  Jesus  should 
enter  his  house,  th(;re  a  man  who  comes  a  long  way  seeking  Jesus  that  he  may  induce 
Him  to  go  with  him  to  his  home  ;  lastly,  aud  in  our  view  this  diffeience  is  most  de- 
cisive, here  we  have  a  Gentile  given  as  an  example  to  all  Jsiatl,  ihere  a  Jew,  whose 
conduct  furnishes  occasion  for  Jesus  to  throw  a  certain  amouut  of  blame  on  all  his 
Galilean  fellow-countrymen.  In  truth,  if  these  two  narratives  referred  to  the  same 
fact,  the  details  of  the  Gospel  narratives  would  no  longer  deserve  tlie  least  credence. 
According  to  Keim,  the  miracle  is  to  be  explained,  on  the  one  hand,  b}'  the  faith  of 
the  centurion  and  the  sick  man,  which  already  contained  certain  liealing  virtues,  aud 
on  the  other,  by  the  moral  power  of  the  word  of  Jesus,  which  word  was  .something 
between  a  wish  and  a  command,  and  completed  the  restoration.  But  does  not  this 
ethico-psychical  mode  of  action  require  the  presence  of  him  who  effects  a  cure  in  this 
way?  Now  this  presence  is  unmistakably  excluded  here  in  both  narratives  by  the 
prayer  of  the  centurion,  and  by  this  word  of  Jesus:  so  great  faith  !  And  what  is 
this  something  between  a  wish  and  a  command  ? 

3.  The  Son  of  the  Widow  of  Nain  :  7  :  11-17.— The  following  narrative  is  one  of 
those  which  clearly  reveal  our  Lord's  tenderness  of  heart,  and  the  power  which 
human  grief  exerted  over  Him.  The  historical  reality  of  this  fact  has  been  objected 
to  on  the  ground  that  it  is  only  related  by  Luke.  Criticism  always  reasons  as  if  the 
evangelists  were  swayed  by  the  same  historical  prepossessions  as  itself.     The  life  of 

*  Ver.  10.  !*.  B.  L.  Iti'''""'!"^,  omit  aaOevovvra  before  dovT^ov. 

f  'This  difference  is  well  stated  in  the  admirable  work  of  Trench  on  "The 
Miracles."  p.  127  (7lh  edition)— a  book  which,  with  that  on  "  The  Parables,"  readers 
who,  like  Sabbath-school  teachers,  wish  to  have  the  meaning  of  the  Gospels,  will  tiud 
most  valuable— J.  H. 


CHAP.   VII.  :  9-15.  217 

Jesus  presented  such  a  rich  store  of  niiniculous  iucidcnls  that  no  one  ever  dreamed 
of  givius  a  complete  record  of  lliein.  Jt-sus  alludes  to  miracles  performed  at  Cbora- 
zin,  none  of  which  are  related  in  our  Gospels.  With  a  single  exception,  we  are 
equally  ignorant  of  all  that  were  wrought  at  Belhsaida.  It  is  very  remarkable  that, 
among  all  the  miracles  which  are  indicated  summaiily  in  our  Gospels  (4  :  28,  40,  41, 
G  :  18.  ID  and  parull.,  7  :  21,  etc.  :  John  2  :  23,  4  :  45.  6  : 1,  20  :  30,  21  !  25),  one  or  two 
only  of  each  class  are  related  in  detail.  It  appears  that  the  most  striking  example  of 
each  class  was  chosen,  and  that  from  the  tirst  no  attempt  was  made  to  pieserve  any 
detailed  account  of  the  others.  For  editication,  which  was  the  sole  aim  of  the  popu- 
lar preaching,  this  was  sulllcient.  Ten  cures  of  lepers  would  say  no  more  to  faith 
than  one.  But  it  might  happen  that  some  of  the  numerous  miracles  passed  over  by 
the  tradition,  came,  through  private  sources  of  information,  to  the  knowledge  of  one 
of  our  evangelists,  and  that  he  inserted  them  in  his  work.  Thus,  under  the  category 
of  resurrections,  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter  had  taken  the  foremost  place  in  the 
tradition — it  is  found  in  the  three  Syn. — while  other  facts  of  the  kind,  such  as  that 
before  us,  had  been  left  iu  the  background,  without,  however,  being  on  that  account 
denied. 

Vers.  11  and  12.*  The  Meeting. — The  reading  ev  tcj  l^r/i  (xpovu),  in  the  folloicing 
time,  does  not  connect  this  narrative  so  closely  with  the  preceding  as  the  reading  iv 
rj  e^/'/i  {'/fiepa),  tlie  following  day.  This  is  a  reason  for  preferring  the  former  ;  it  is  only 
natural  that  the  more  precise  should  be  substituted  for  the  less  definite  connection. 
Robinson  found  a  hamlet  named  Nein  to  the  south-west  of  Capernaum,  at  the  north- 
ern foot  of  the  little  Hermon.  It  is  in  this  locality,  moreover,  that  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  place  the  city  of  Nain.  Jesus  would  only  have  to  make  a. day's  journey  to 
reach  it  from  Capernaum.  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  iv.  9.  4)  mentions  a  city  of  Nain, 
situated  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  iu  the  south  part  of  the  Persea  ;  and  Kostlin, 
relying  on  the  expressions  in  ver.  17,  applied  this  name  to  this  town  in  the  immediate 
neighl)orhood  of  Judaea,  and  thought  that  Luke's  narrative  must  have  come  from  a 
Judaean  source.  But  we  shall  see  that  ver.  17  may  be  explained  without  having  re- 
course to  this  supposition,  which  is  not  very  natural.  The  Kal  uhv,  and  behold,  ex- 
presses something  striking  in  the  unexpected  meeting  of  the  two  processions — the 
train  which  accompanied  the  Prince  of  Life,  and  that  which  followed  the  victim  of 
death.  This  seems  to  be  expressed  also  by  the  relation  of  iKavoi  in  ver.  11  to  UavdQ 
in  ver.  12.  The  first  of  these  words  has  been  omitted  by  many  mss.,  because  the  ex- 
pression :  Ms  disciples,  appeared  to  refer  to  the  apostles  alone.  At  ver.  12  the  con- 
struction is  Aramaean.  The  dative  ttj  fijjTpi  expresses  all  the  tenderness  of  the  re- 
lationship which  had  just  been  severed. 

Vers.  13-15. f  The  Miracle. — The  expression  :  tTie  Lord,  is  seldom  met  with  iu  our 
Gospels  except  in  Luke,  and  principally  in  the  passages  which  are  peculiar  to  him  : 
10  : 1,  11  ;  39,  12  :  42,  13  :  15,  17  :  5.  G,  18  :  G,  22  :  31,  Gl  (Block).  The  whole  circum- 
stances enumerated  ver.  12  :  an  only  son,  a  widowed  mother,  and  the  public  sympa- 
thy, enable  us  to  understand  what  it  was  that  acted  with  such  power  upon  the  heart 
of  Jesus.     It  seems  that  He  cuuld  not  resist  the  silent  appeal  presented  by  this  com- 

*  Vers.  11-14.  ^Ijj.  70  "Mnn.  It""'',  read,  tv  -u  e^rjr  iristeiid  of  ev  -tj  e^rji,  which  is 
the  reading  of  T.  it.  with  !*.  C.  D.  K.  M.  S,  II.  many  Mnn.  Syr.  If'W.  !*.  B.  D.  F. 
L.  Z.  Syr•'^^  jipierique^  Qojjt  i^avoi.  Vcr.  12.  7  jMjj.  add  t/v  after  avTT],  ik.  B.  L.  Z. 
add  riv  before  axw  nvrrj. 

\  Ver.  13.  The  .mss.  vary  between  en'  avrr]  and  eir'  avTjjv. 


218  COMMENTARY    ON"    ST.   LUKE. 

/ 

bi nation  of  circumstances.     His  heart  is  completely  sul)duecl  by  the  sobs  of  Ihel 
mothor.     Hence  the  woixl,  at  once  tender  and  authoritative  :    Weep  not.     Prudence'") 
perhaps  would  have  dictated  that  He  should  uot  work  such  a  strildng  miracle  at  this  | 
time.     But  when  pity  speaks  so  loud  {ia-AayxvMri),  there  is  no  longer  any  room  for! 
prudeuce.     Besides,  He  feels  Himself  authorized  to  comfort.     For  in  this  very  meet- 
ing He  recognizes  the  will  of  His  Father.     Among  the  Jews  the  bier  was  not  cov-' 
ered  ;  it  was  a  simple  plank,  with  a  somewhat  raised  edge.     The  body,  wrapped  in   j 
its  shroud,  was  therefore  visible  to  all.     Jesus  lays  His  hand  on  the  bier,  as  if  to 
arrest  this  fugitive  from  life.     The  bearers,  struck  by  the  majesty  of  this  gesture, 
which  was  at  once  natural  and  symbolical,  stopped.     There  is  a  matchless  grandeur 
in  this  aol  Aiyu  :  "  I  say  to  thee,     ...     to  thee  who  seemest  no  longer  able  to  hear 
the  voice  of  the  living    ..."     There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  text  to  justify 
the  sarcasm  of  Keim  :  "  Faith  in  a  force  which  penetrates  to  the  dead,  even  through 
the  wood  of  the  bier,  evidently  belongs  to  the  evangelist,  but  it  is  uot  ours."     The" 
resurrection  is  in  no  way  attributed  to  the  touching  of  the  bier,  but  to  the  command,  *  •* 
of  Jesus.     The  interruption  of  the  connection  between  the  soul  and  the  body  in  deathj 
as  in  sleep,  is  only  relative  ;  and  as  man's  voice  suffices  to  re-establish  this  connection 
in  any  one  who  is  rapt  in  slumber,  so  the  word  of  the  Lord  has  power  to  restore  this 
interrupted  connection  even  in  tlie  dead.     The  advocates  of  the  natural  interpretation 
have  maintained  that  the  young  man  was  only  in  a  lethargic  sleep.     But  if  this  were 
so,  the  miracle  of  power  would  only  disappear  to  be  replaced  by  a  miracle  of  knowl- 
edg(;  quite  as  incomprehensible.     Huw  could  Jesus  know  that  this  apparently  dead 
man  was  still  living,  and  that  the  moment  of  his  awaking  was  imminent  ?*    As  soon 
as  the  soul  returned  to  animate  the  body,  motion  and  speech  indicated  its  presence. 
Jesus  ceilainly  has  acquired  a  right  over  the  resuscitated  man  ;  He  asserts  this  right, 
but  simply  to  enjoy  the  happiness  of  restoring  to  the  afflicted  mother  the  treasure 
which  He  has  rescued  from  death.     The  expression  :  lie  gave  Mm  to  Im  mother,  cor- 
responds to  this  :  lie  teas  moved  with  compassion,  ver.  13. 

Vers.  IG,  17.  f  The  Effect  produced. — On  the  feeling  of  fear,  see  chap.  5:8.  A 
great  prophet  .■  a  greater  tlian  John  the  Baptist  himself,  a  prophet  of  the  first  rank, 
such  as  Elijah  or  Moses.  The  second  expression  :  Ood  hath  visited  .  .  .  is  more 
forcible  still  ;  it  suggests  more  than  it  expresses.  The  expression  :  this  saying  [this 
rumor,  A.  V.],  might  be  referred  to  the  fame  of  the  miracle  which  was  immediately 
spread  abroad.  But  the  words  Trepl  avroii,  cowerning  Hi)n,  which  depend,  as  in  ver. 
15,  on  Aoyo'i  ovtoZ,  rather  incline  us  to  refer  this  expression  to  the  two  preceding  ex- 
clamations (ver.  16):  "  This  manner  of  thinking  and  speaking  about  Jesus  spread 
abroad."  It  is  an  indication  of  progress  in  the  development  of  the  woik  of  Jesus. 
In  order  to  explain  into  Judcea,  Keim  (i.  p.  72)  unceremoniously  says  :  Luke  justf 
makes  Nain  a  city  of  Judaja.  But  the  term  k^riWev,  literally  :  went  out,  signifies  the;  **- 
very  contrary  ;  it  intimates  that  these  sayings,  after  having  filled  Galilee  (their  fiist 
sphere,  understood  without  express  mention),  this  time  passed  beyond  this  natural 

*  Zeller  ("  Aposlelgesch."  p.  177)  re[)lies  with  some  smartness  to  this  ancient 
rationalistic  exphmatiun.  "  In  order  to  ailmit  it,"  he  says,  "  it  must  be  thought  cred- 
ible that,  witliin  the  short  period  embraced  by  the  evangelical  and  apostolic  history, 
there  took  [)lace  five  times  over,  thrice  in  the  Gospels  and  twice  in  the  Acts,  this 
snme  circumstance,  this  same  remarkable  chance  of  a  lethargy,  which,  tliough  unper- 
ceived  by  those  who  were  engaged  about  the  dead,  yields  to  the  first  word  of  the  di- 
vine messenger,  and  gives  rise  to  a  belief  in  a  real  resurrection." 

f  Ver.  1(5.  A.  B.  C.  L.  Z.,  rp/tp^ii]  for  tyityiprat. 


riiAi'.   VI  r.  :  IG,  ir.  ;^1'J 

limit,  and  resounded  as  far  as  the  country  of  Juda?a,  -where  they  filled  every  mouth. 
There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  to  give  the  word  Judica  here  the  unusual  meaning  of 
llie  entire  Holy  Land,  as  Meyer  and  Bleelc  do.     The  reason  why  this  detail  is  added, 
is  not  in  any  way  wlial  Kiisllin's  acute  discernment  surmised  in  order  to  build  upon 
it  tiie  critical  hypothesis  ihat  the  narrative  is  of  Juda-au  origin.     These  words  arej 
inlended  to  form  tiie  Iransiiinn  to  the  following  passage.     John  was  in  prison  iu  the/ 
S)uth  of  the  Holy  Lund,  in  the  neighborhooil  of  .Judae.i  (iu   Peiiea,  in   the  castle  ofL^^. 
Mach;erus,  according  to  .Toscphus).     The  fame  of  the  woiksof  Jesus,  Ihirefore,  only 
reached  him  in  his  prison  by  passing  through  Judteu.     The  words  :  and  throuyhout^. 
all  ilie  region  round  about,  which  refer  especially  to  the  Pcriea,  leave  no  doubt  as  to 
the  intention  of  this  remark  of  Luke.     It  forms  the  introduction  to  the  foUowiug  nar- 
rative. 

There  is  a  difflcnlty  peculiar  to  this  miracle,  owing  to  the  absence  of  all  moral 
receptivity  in  the  subject  of  it.  Lazarus  was  a  believer  ,  in  the  case  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  the  faith  ot  the  parents  to  a  certain  extent  supplied  the  place  of  htr  per- 
somd  faith.  But  here  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  only  receptive  element  that 
can  be  imagined  is  the  ardent  desiie  of  life  with  which  this  young  man,  the  only  son 
of  a  widowed  mother,  had  doublless  yielded  his  last  bieath.  And  this,  iodted.  is 
sufficient.  For  it  follows  from  this,  that  Jesus  did  not  dispose  of  him  arbitrarily. 
And  as  to  faith,  many  facts  prove  that  not  in  any  miracle  is  it  to  be  regarded  as  a 
dynamical  fa<nor,  but  only  as  a  simple  moial  condition  related  to  the  spiritual  aim 
which  Jesus  sets  before  Himself  in  performing  the  wonderful  work. 

Keim,  fully  sensible  of  the  incompetency  of  any  psychological  explanation  to 
acrount  for  such  a  miracle,  has  recourse  to  the  mj'thical  interpictalion  of  Strauss  in 
his  first  "  Life  of  Jesus."  We  are  supposed  to  have  here  an  imitation  of  the  resur- 
rcc'ion  of  dead  persons  in  the  Old  Testament,  particularly  of  that  wrought  by  Elisha 
Jit  Sliunem,  which  is  only  a  short  lc^.gue  from  Naiu.  These  continual  changes  of 
expedients,  ivilh  a  view  to  get  rid  of  the  miracles,  are  not  calculated  to  recommend 
ralionalislic  criticism.  And  we  cannot  forbear  reminding  ourselves  here  of  what 
Baur  urged  with  so  much  force  against*  Sirauss  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  of 
Lazaius:  thut  a  myth  that  was  a  creation  of  the  Chiistian  consciousness  must  have 
been  generally  diffused,  and  not  have  been  found  in  only  one  of  our  Gospels.  Inven- 
tion by  the  author  (and  consequently  imposture)  or  history,  is  the  only  alternative. 

From  the  omission  of  tliis  miiacle  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  advocates  of  the 
opinion  that  a  proto-Mark  was  the  common  s  mrce  of  the  Syu.,  conclude  that  this 
narrative  was  wanting  in  the  primitive  document,  and  that  Luke  added  it  from  special 
sources.  But  if  this  were  only  ;i  simple  intercalation  of  Luke's,  liis  narrative  would 
coincide  innuediately  afterward  with  those  of  Maik  and  Matthew.  Unfortunately 
there  is  no  such  coincidence.  ^latthew,  after  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  servant, 
relates  the  cure  of  Peter's  mntherin-law.  and  a  number  of  incidents  which  have 
nothing  in  common  with  those  which  follow  in  Luke.  And  Mark,  who  has  already 
omitted  the  preceding  fact,  although  it  should  have  been  ftmnd,  according  to  this 
hypothesis,  in  the  proto-Mark— for  that  is  where  Matthew  must  have  taken  it  from 
— doi's  not  fall,  after  this  omission,  into  the  series  of  facts  related  by  Luke.  After 
the  day  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  he  places  a  series  of  incidents  which  have  no 
connection  with  those  that  follow  in  Luke.  And  yet  the  bnast  is  made,  that  the 
dependence  of  the  three  Syn.  on  a  primitive  Mark  has  been  shown  to  demonstration  ! 
As  to  Bleek,  who  makes  Mark  depend  on  the  other  two,  he  does  not  even  attempt  to 


320  COJIME^ITAKY    OX   ST.  LUKE. 

explain  how  Mark,  having  Luke  before  his  eyes,  omitted  incidents  of  such  impor- 
tance. 

4.   The  Deputation  from  John  the  Baptist:  7:18-35. — This  incident,  related  only 
by  Mtililiew  (ciiap.  11)  and  Tiuke,  and  by  Ihem  differently  placed,  is  in  both  accounted 
for  in  the  same  manner.     The  fame  of  the  works  of  Jesus  readied  even  .John.     If 
Luke  does  not  expressly  say,  as  Matthew  does,  that  the  forerunner  was  in  prison,  it 
u  because,  whatever  Bleek  may  say,  this  position  of  affairs  was  sufficiently  known 
from  the  remark,  3  :  19,  20.     But  how  should  llie  fame  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  of 
the  works  of  the  C/tmi  (Matthew),  awaken  in  his  mind  the  doubt  which  his  question 
appears  to  imply  ?    Strauss  has  maliciously  expressed  his  surprise  that  no  manufac- 
turer of  conjectures  has  as  yet  proposed  to  substitute  in   Matthew  :  ovk  ciKovaag,  not 
haoing  heard,  for  uKovaai,  having  heard.     But  Ibis  appaient  contradiction  is  the  very 
key  to  the  whole  incident.     Most  assuredly  John  does  not  doubt  whether  Jesus  is  a 
divine  messenger,  for  he  interrogates  Him.     He  does  not  appear  even  to  deny  Him 
all  participation  in  the  Messianic  work  :  "  John  having  heard  in  his  prison  of  the 
works  of  the  Christ"  (Matthew).     What  he  cannot  undei  stand  is  just  this,  that  these 
works  of  the  Christ  ate  not  accompanied  by  tiie  realizalion  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Mes- 
sianic progiamme  which  he  had  formerly  proclaimed  himself,  and  especially  by  the 
theocratic  judgment.     "His  fan  is  in  his  hand     .     .     .     the  axe  is  already  laid  at 
the  root  of  the  trees."    Jesus  in    noway  recognizes  it  as  His  dutj'  to  become  the 
Messiah-judge  whom  John  had  announced  in  such  solemn  terms,  and  whose  expected 
coming  had  so  unsettled  the  people.     On  the  contrary,  He  said  :  "  I  am  come  not  to 
judge,  but  to  save"  (John  3  :  17).     This  contrast  between  the  form  of  the  Messianic 
work  as  it  was  being  accomplished  by  Jesus,  and  the  picture  which  John  Jiad  diawu 
of  it  liimselt,  leads  him  to  inquire  whether  the  Messianic  woik  was  to  be  diviilc-d 
between  two  different  persons— the  one,  Jesus,  founding  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
heatt  by  His  word  and  by  miracles  of  benevolence  ;  the  other  commissioned  to  ex- 
ecute the  theocratic  judgment,  and  by  acts  of  power  to  build  up  on  the  earth  the 
national  and  sociai  edifice  of  the  kingdom  of  Cod.    This  is  the  real  meaumg  of  Jnhu's 
question  :  "  Should  we  look  for  [not  properly  another,  but]  a  different  one  {eteijov  ia 
Matthew,  and  perhaps  in  Luke  also)?"     We  know  in  fact  that  several  divine  mes- 
sengers were  cx^pected.     Might  not  Jesus  be  that  prophet  whom  some  distinguislitd 
from  the  Christ  (9  :  19)  ;  John  1  :  20,   21.  25),   but  whom  others  identified  with  Him 
(John  6  :  14,  15)?    Doubtless,  if  this  was  the  thought  of  the  forerunner,  it  indicated 
weakness  of  faith,  and  Jesus  characterizes  it   as  such  {is  offended  tn  Him,  ver.  2^). 
But  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  it.     Not  without  reason   had  John  said  conoein- 
ing  himself  :  "  He  that  is  of  the  earth  speaketh  as  being  of  the  earth"  (John  3  :  31)  ; 
and  .Jesus,  that  he  was  less  than  the  least  of  believers.     Such  alternations  bet  we.  u 
wonderful  exaltation  and  deep  and  sudden  depression  are  characteristic  of  all  the  men 
of  the  old  covenant  ;  lifted  for  a  moment  above  themselves,  but  not  as  yet  inwaidly 
renewed,  they  soon  sank  back  to  their  natural  level.     There  is  no  need,  therefoie,  to 
have  recourse  to  the  hypothesis  of  Chiysostom,  accepted  by  Calvin,  Grntius,  etc., 
that  John  desired  to  give  his  disciples  an  opportunity  to  convince  themselves  of  llie 
dignity  of  Jesus,  or  to  suppose,  with  Hase,  that  John's  design  was  to  stimulate  Jesus, 
and  accelerate  the  progress  of  His  work.     These  explanations  do  not  correspond 
with  either  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  text. 

This  portion  comprises  :  tsi,  the  question  of  John,  and  the  reply  of  Jesus,  vers. 
18-23  ;  2d,  the  discoiuse  of  Jesus  upon  the  person  and  mini  try  of  John,  vers.  24-35. 


ciiAi'.   vii.  :  18-:.';).  :l'^l 

Ut.  Vers.  18-23  ;  Tlie  Quesiion  and  the  Reply. 

Vers.  18  auil  19.*  I'/ie  Quesfion. — Tlmsfur,  iiccording  toIloltzmannCpp.  135,  143). 
Luke  had  followed  the  first  of  his  sources,  the  proto-Miiik  {A.)  ;  now  he  leuvcs  it  to 
make  use  of  the  second  (of  which  theaulhorof  our  Miilthew  has  also  availed  himself), 
the  Lji^ia  or  discourses  of  Matthew  (A).  The  expression  :  6  epxouevoi.  He  who  comeih, 
i.s  taken  from  Malachi  (3:1):  "  Behold,  He  cometh,  .saith  the  Lord."  The  readrng 
(Tepov,  which  is  certain  in  ^latthew.  is  probable  in  Luke.  This  i)ronoun,  taken  in 
its  strict  meaning  :  a  second,  attributes  to  Jesus  in  any  case  tlie  otlice  of  the  Chilst. 

Vers.  20-23. f  The  Rtply. — As  ^Maltliew  does  not  mention  the  miracles  which  weie 
wrnuLrht,  according  to  Luke,  in  the  presence  of  John's  messengers,  criticism  has  sus- 
pected the  latter  of  having  invented  this  scene  himself.  This  conclusion  is  logical  if 
it  be  admitted  that  he  makes  use  of  Matthew,  or  of  the  same  document  as  Matthew. 
But  by  what  right  are  such  charges  preferred  against  a  historian  whose  narrative 
iu.iicates  at  every  step  the  excellence  of  his  own  information,  or  of  the  sources  upon 
which  he  drew?  Dg  wc  not  see  Matthew  continually  abridging  his  historical  outline, 
in  order  to  give  the  fullest  pos.«ible  report  of  the  words  of  Jesus?  In  the  present 
case,  do  not  the  words  :  "  Go,  tell  John  what  ye  do  see  and  hear,"  imply  the  historical 
fact  which  Mallhcw  omits?  It  is  precisely  because  the  word  implied  the  fact,  that 
this  evangelist  thought  he  might  content  himself  with  the  former.  The  demonstra- 
tive force  of  Jesus'  reply  appears  not  only  from  the  miracles,  but  still  more  from  the 
connection  between  these  facts  and  the  signs  of  the  Messiah,  as  foretold  in  the  Old 
Testament  (Isa.  35  : 4,  5,  61  :  1  et  seq.).  Jesus  does  not  mention  the  cure  of  demoni- 
acs, because,  perhaps,  no  mention  is  made  of  them  in  the  O.  T.  Neauder  and 
Schweitzer  take  the  words  :  the  dead  are  raised  vp,  in  a  figurative  sense.  Keim 
thinks  that  the  evangelists  have  taken  all  these  miracles  in  the  literal  sense,  but  that 
Jesus  understood  them  in  the  spiritual  sense  .  the  people,  blinded  by  the  Pharisees, 
gain  knowledge  ;  the  publicans  (the  lepers)  are  cleansed  from  their  defilement,  etc. 
The  works  of  the  Christ  should  be  understood  in  the  same  .spiritual  sense  (his  in- 
structions and  missionary  efforts).  But  the  spiritual  fruits  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
are  not  facts  which  fall  under  the  cognizance  of  the  senses.  "  What  ye  do  see  and 
hear"  can  only  denote  bodily  cures  and  resurrections,  whi(;h  they  cither  witness  or 
have  related.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  jntentionalh'  placed  at  lire  end  ;  it  is 
the  characteristic  feature  of  the  Messianic  work,  as  it  was  being  accomplished  by 
Jesus,  in  opposition  to  the  idea  which  John  had  formed  of  it.  Jesus,  at  the  same 
time,  thereby  reminds  His  forerunner  of  Isa.  61  : 1.  These  words  form  the  transiti  ui 
to  the  warning  of  the  23d  verse  :  "  Blessed  is  he  who  shall  not  be  offended  in  me." 
^who  shall  not  ask  for  any  other  proof  than  those  of  m}'  Messianic  dignity  ;  who  slmil 
not,  in  tiie  humble,  gentle,  and  merciful  progress  of  m}'  woik.  despise  the  true  char- 
acteiistics  of  tlie  promised  Christ  !  Isaiah  had  said  of  the  Messiah  (8  :  14)  :  "  He  shall 
be  for  a  stone  of  stumbling  ;  and  many  among  them  shall  stumble  and  fall."  It  is 
this  solemn  warning  of  which  Jesus  rem'.rds  both  John  and  his  cfiscii)les,  as  well  as  Ihe 
people  who  witnessed  the  scene  :  nKni'<^aki:,ea^jai.  •  to  huH  one's  self  by  stinnhliiifj.  To 
what  a  height  Jesus  here  soars  above  tlie  greatest  representative  of  the  past  !    But, 

*  Ver.  19.  B.  L.  R  Z.  someMnn.  It"'"'!.,  nvpiov  instead  of  Irjanw,  ^.  B.  L.  R.  X. 
Z.  10  Mnn.,  erepov  instead  of  ua/ov. 

t  Ver.  20.  it.  B..  aTrenrei/ev  instead  of  aTearaXKev.  it.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  12  Mnn.,  erepov 
instead  of  n?./.ov.  Ver.  21.  St.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.,  {kelvti  instead  of  nvrr/.  it.  L.,  7ifiepa 
instead  of  una.     Ver.  22.  it.  B.  D.  Z.  omit  o  Irjaovi. 


2'^2  COMMENTARY    OX    ST,   LUKE. 

at  the  same  time,  what  sincerity  is  manifested  by  the  sacred  authors,  who  do  net  fear 
to  exhibit  in  the  clearest  light  the  infirmities  of  their  most  illustrious  hemes  ! 

2d.  Vers.  24-35.  The  DiscouTse  of  Jesus. — Jesus  had  a  debt  to  discharge.  John  had 
borne  striking  'icslimony  to  Ilim  ;  He  avails  Himself  of  this  occasion  to  pay  public 
homage  in  His  turn  to  His  forerunner.  He  would  not  allow  this  opportunity  to  pass 
without  doing  it,  because  there  was  a  strict  solidarity  between  John's  mission  and  His 
own.  This  discourse  of  Jesus  concerning  John  is,  as  it  were,  the  funeral  oration  of 
the  latter  ;  for  he  was  put  to  death  soon  after.  Jesus  begins  by  declaiiug  tlie  im- 
portance of  .John's  appearing  (vers.  24-28);  he  next  speaks  of  the  influence  excited 
by  his  ministry  (vers.  29,  30)  ;  lastly,  He  describes  the  conduct  of  the  people  uuder 
these  two  great  divine  calls — John's  ministry  and  His  own  (vers.  31-3o).  The  same 
general  order  is  found  in  Matt.  11  ;  Isi,  vers.  7-11  ;  2d,  vers.  13-15  ;  od,  vers.  lG-20. 

Vers.  24-28.*  Ihe  Importance  of  John's  Appearing  — "  And  when  the  messengers 
of  John  were  departed,  He  began  to  speak  unto  the  people  concerning  John  :  What 
went  ye  out  into  the  wilderness  to  see?  A  reed  shaken  with  the  wind?  25.  But 
what  went  ye  out  for  to  see  ?  A  man  clothed  in  soft  raiment  ?  Behold,  they  which 
are  gorgeously  apparelled,  and  live  dclicatelj%  are  in  kings'  courts.  2G.  But  what 
went  ye  out  for  to  see?  A  prophet?  Yea,  I  say  rmto  you,  and  much  more  than  a 
prophet.  27.  This  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written.  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before 
Thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  Thy  way  before  Thee.  28.  For  I  say  unto  you. 
Among  those  that  are  born  of  women,  there  is  not  a  greater  [prophet]  than  John  tlie 
Baptist :  but  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  greater  than  he."  'Ep^aro,  He 
her/an  to,  as  4  :  21  ;  this  term  intimates  the  solemnity  of  the  discourse  which  it  intro- 
duces. The  people  themselves,  by  crowding  to  the  baptism  of  John,  showed  that 
they  recognized  him  as  an  extraordinary  person  ;  and  they  were  right.  Is  the  reed 
shaken  by  the  M'ind  an  emblem  here  of  moral  instability  ?  The  meaning  in  tliis  case 
would  be  :  "  Yes,  John  is  really  as  vacillating  as  a  reed  "  (Ewald)  ;  or  else  :  "  No, 
you  must  not  draw  this  conclusion  from  what  has  just  taken  place"  (Meyer,  >sean- 
der,  Bleek).  But  tlils  reed  shaken  by  the  v;ind  may  be  regarded  simply  as  the  em- 
blem of  something  of  ordinar}',  every-day  occurrence.  "  It  was  not  certainly  to  be- 
hold something  which  may  be  seen  every  day  that  you  flocked  to  the  desei-t."  The 
verb  J^<5/^f/.i',  /i9 ,1719  cw^,  expresses  the  great  commotion  caused  by  sucli  a  i)ilgrimage. 
The  perf  t-^E'TjAiYja-e  signifies  ;  "  What  impression  have  you  retained  fiom  what  you 
went  to  see  "  while  the  aor.  (Alex.)  would  signify:  "What  motive  induced  you  to 
go  ..."  Tischendorf  acknowledges  that  the  perf.  is  the  true  leading.  The  nor. 
is  taken  from  Matthew.  The  verb  Oedaaadai.  depends  on  e^eWriXvfjaTE,  and  must  not 
be  joined  to  the  following  proposition  :  they  went  out  in  search  of  a  spectacle.  This 
expression  remind.'^  us  of  the  saying  of  Jeii.s  ^Johu  5  :  35)  :  "  John  was  a  burning  and 
a  shining  light :  and  ye  were  willing  for  a  season  to  rejoice  in  hislight."  In  an^-  case, 
therefore,  .John  is  something  great — the  popular  opinion  is  not  deceived  here.     But 


*  Ver.  24.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  rrpoi  mvq  ox/~"vS  and  mv?  o\/ovf.  Vers. 
24  and  25.  Instead  of  E^t/.v'^vfiaTE,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  12  Mjj.  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  Mnn.,  iJ.  A.  B.  D.  L.  X.  and  some  Mnn.  read  eirf/fjarc  ;  K.  D.  iiU 
Mnn.,  eEri'^-dere.  Ver.  26.  Just  as  vers.  24  and  25,  except  with  A.  K.  11.,  which 
here  read  e.^f/??Xw(3are  with  T.  R.  Ver.  27.  ii.  B.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  It.  omit  fju 
after  i6ov.  Ver.  28.  B.  Z.,  /eyu  ;  i^.  L.  X.,  a/iT/v  '/eyu  instead  of  '/eyu  ynp,  whi'h  is 
the  reading  of  T.  R.  Avith  13  Mjj.  and  the  Mnn.  ii.  B.  K.  L.  ]\I.  X.  Z.  n,  25  .^lun. 
jjpierique^  omit  7rpo(pr]TrjS,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  10  Mjj.  lt"'"i.  Syr-*'=''.  !!*. 
B.  L.  X.  omit  rov  BaTrrisTov. 


ciiAi'.  vii.  :  ;i4-;;r).  :i2:i 

niere  are  two  kinds  of  greatness  —  earthly  {greatness,  and  heavenly.  Of  which  is 
John's?  If  it  had  been,  Jesus  continues,  of  an  earthly  nature,  Jolui  would  not  have 
dwelt  in  a  wilderness,  but  in  a  palace.  His  greatness,  therefore,  was  of  a  divine 
order.  But,  according  to  Jewish  opinion,  all  greatness  of  this  kind  consists  in  a 
propiietic  mission.  Hence  the  conclusion  at  which  the  people  arrived  respecting 
John,  which  Jesus  begins  by  contirming,  "  Yea,  I  say  unto  you  ;"  and  then  going 
beyond  this,  (indmore  Ihaa  a  prophet.  Is  it  not  greater,  iudied,  to  be  the  subject  of 
jjiodiction  than  to  predict — to  tigure,  in  the  picture  of  the  ^Messianic  tunes,  as  a  per- 
son foreseen  by  the  prophets,  than  one's  self  to  hold  the  prophetic  glass?  Tliis  is 
why  John  is  more  than  a  propliet :  his  appearing  is  a  yEypafi/xhov,  an  event  icritten. 

The  quotation  from  Mai.  3  : 1  is  found  in  the  three  Syn.  ;  in  Matthew,  in  the  par- 
allel passage  (11  :  10) ;  in  Muilc  (1  : 2),  at  the  opening  of  the  Gospel,  but  with  this 
dilTerence,  that  he  omits  the  words,  before  Thee.  On  the  t>(j,  /  (after  \^ov),  the  vari- 
ous readings  do  not  permit  us  to  pronounce.  This  general  agreement  is  remarkable  ; 
for  the  quotation  is  identical  neither  with  tlie  Hebrew  te.xt  nor  with  the  LXX. 
Neither  Malachi  nor  the  LXX.  have  the  words,  fo/o/v  my  face,  in  the  proposition  ; 
but  in  the  second,  the  former  says,  hifore  me,  aud  the  lauer,  before  my  face.  Fur- 
ther, the  LXX.  lead  i^a7zo-!rc'/2u)  instead  of  a-xoariklu,  and  i/i3?Jrlie-ai  instead  of 
h(i7a-iKevu(TEt.  This  might  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  a  common  written  source,  or 
of  the  use  of  one  of  the  Syn.  by  the  rest ;  but  it  would  not  be  decisive.  For,  1.  If 
the  common  source  is  the  Proto-Mark,  how  could  Mark  himself  place  this  quotation 
in  (piite  a  different  context  ?  2.  If  it  is  the  Lngia,  why  does  ISIaik,  instead  of  simply 
copying  it,  omit"  the  words, before  Thee?  3.  It  would  bejnstthe  same  if  Mark  copied 
one  of  the  other  Syn.  4.  Neil  her  do  these  copy  Mark,  which  does  not  contain  the 
discourse.  Tiie  coincidences  in  the  Syn.  must  therefore  be  explained  in  a  different 
way.  The  subslilulion  in  Luke  and  Mattliew  of  before  Thee  for  before  me  (in  ]\Iala- 
chi),  resulis  fi-oin  the  way  in  which  Jesus  Himself  had  cited  this  pusiage.  In  the 
prophet's  view.  He  who  was  sending,  and  He  before  whom  the  way  was  to  be  pre- 
pared, were  one  and  the  same  person,  Jehovah.  Hence  the  before  me  in  Malachi. 
But  for  Jesus,  who,  in  speaking  of  Himself,  never  confounds  Himself  with  the 
Father,  a  distinction  became  necessary.  It  is  not  Jehovah  who  speaks  of  Himself, 
but  Jehovah  speaking  to  Jesus  ;  hence  the  form  before  Thee.  From  whicli  evidence, 
dots  it  not  follow  from  this  quotation  that,  in  the  prophet's  idea,  as  well  as  in  that  of 
Jesus,  Messiah's  appearing  is  the  appearing  of  Jehovah  ?  (See  Gess,  pp.  oD,  40.)  As 
to  the  other  expressions  in  common,  Weizsiicker  correctly  explains  them  b\'  saying 
thai,  since  "  this  quotation  belonged  to  the  ^lessianic  demonstration  in  habitual  use," 
it  acquired  in  this  way  the  lixed  form  under  which  we  find  it  in  our  Syn. 

Tiie /(??•.  VL*r.  28,  refers  to  the  words,  of  whom  it  is  written.  The  person  whose  lot 
it  has  been  to  be  mentioned  along  with  the  ^lessiah,  must  be  of  no  ordinary  distinc- 
tion. TheT.  R.,  with  the  Byz.  Mjj.  reads:  "I  say  nnto  you,  that  among  them 
which  are  horn  of  woman,  there  hath  arLien  no  greater  prophet  than  John  the  Bap- 
tist." The  Alex,  omit  the  word  prophet,  and  lightly;  for  there  is  tautology.  Is 
not  every  prophet  born  of  woman  V  The  superiority  of  John  over  all  other  thcocratio 
and  human  appearances,  refers  not  to  his  personal  worth,  but  to  his  position  and 
work.  Did  his  inward  life  surpass  that  of  Abraham,  Elijah,  etc.  ,  .  .  ?  Jesus 
does  not  say  it  did.  But  his  mission  is  higher  than  theirs.  And  nevertheless,  Jesus 
adds,  the  aneient  order  of  things  and  the  new  are  separated  by  such  a  gulf,  that  the 
least  in  Ihu  latter  has  a  higher  position  than  John  himself.     The  weakest  disciple  has 


-Z'^4:  C03IMEXTAIIY   (  ^'    ST.   J.UKE. 

a  more  spiritual  iutuilion  of  divine  things  tlian  the  forerunner.  He  enjoys  in  .Tcsus 
the  dignity  of  a  sun,  while  John  is  only  a  servant.  The  least  believer  is  one  wiili 
this  Son  whom  John  announces.  It  does  not  follow  from  this,  that  tliis  believer  is 
more  faithful  than  John.  John  may  be  further  advanced  on  his  line,  but  none  tlie 
less  for  that  the  line  of  the  believer  is  higher  than  his.  There  is  au  element  of  a 
higher  life  io  the  one,  wiiicli  is  wanting  in  the  other.  This  leflectiou  is  added  b}" 
Jesus  not  with  a  view  to  depreciate  John,  but  to  explain  and  excuse  the  uuslead- 
fastness  of  his  faith,  the  oKavda'/.i^eaOai  (ver.  23).  Seveial  of  the  ancients  underslocd 
by  the  least  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  cither  John's  junior,  or,  for  the  time,  even  Jess 
iUustrious  than  he.  The  only  way  of  supporting  this  interpretation  would  be  to  re- 
fer the  words,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  is  (jreater,  which  is  evidently  forced.  We 
have  given  to  the  compaiative,  less,  asupeilative  meaning,  hust.  Meyer,  pressing  the 
iJea  of  the  comparative,  gives  this  explanation  :  "he  who,  in  the  new  era,  has  a 
position  relatively  less  lofty  than  that  which  John  had  in  the  old."  This  meaning  is 
far-fetched  ;  Matt.  18  :  1  shows  us  how  the  sense  of  the  comparative  becomes  su[)er- 
'lalive  :  he  who  is  greater  [than  the  other]  ;  whence  :  the  greatest  of  all.  Comp.  also 
Luke  9  :  48.  This  saying,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  Jjej'ond  suspicion,  shows  how 
fully  conscious  Jesus  was  of  introducing  a  principle  of  life  supeiior  to  the  most  ex- 
alted element  in  Judaism.* 

Vers.  29  and  30.  Retrospective  Survey  of  ths.  Ministry  of  John. — "  And  all  the 
people  that  heard  "Him,  and  the  publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  John.  CO.  But  the  Phaiisees  and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God 
against  themselves  [the  Pharisees  and  scribes  lendered  God's  design  vain  in  their 
case. — M.  Godei's  Trans.'],  being  not  baptized  of  him."  These  verses  form  tiie 
transition  from  the  testimony  which  Jesus  has  just  borne  to  John,  to  the  application 
iwhich  he  desires  to  make  to  the  persons  present.  He  attributes  to  ttie  mmistiy  of 
'John  a  twofold  result  :  a  general  movement  among  the  lower  classes  of  the  people, 
ver.  29  ;  an  open  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  julers  who  determine  the  fate  of  the 
nation,  ver.  30.  Several  interpreters  (Knapp,  Neandei)  have  been  led  by  Ine  histor- 
ical form  of  these  verses  to  regard  them  as  a  reflection  of  the  evangelist  introduced 
into  the  discourse  of  Jesus.  But  such  a  mention  of  a  fact  interrupting  a  discourse 
would  be  unexampled.  In  any  case  it  would  be  indicated,  and  the  resumption  of  the 
discourse  pointed  out  in  ver.  31  ;  the  formula,  And  the  Lord  said,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  verse,  is  not  authentic.  Had  John  been  still  at  liberty,  the  words  all 
that  heard  might,  strictly  speaking,  have  referred  to  a  fact  which  had  taken  place  at 
that  time,  to  a  resolution  which  His  hearers  had  formed  to  go  and  be  baptized  by 
John  that  very  hour.  But  John  was  no  longer  baptizing  (3  :  19,  20  ;  Matt.  11  :  2). 
These  words  are  therefore  the  continuation  of  the  discourse.  Tho  meaning  of  Jesus 
is  :  John's  greatness  (286  is  only  a  parenthesis)  was  thoroughly  understood  by  the 
people  ;  for  a  time  they  did  homage  to  his  mission,  while  (ie,  ver.  30)  the  lulers 
rejected  him.  And  thus  it  is  that,  notwithstanding  the  eagerness  of  the  peopie  in 
seeking  baptism  from  John,  his  ministry  has  neveitheless  turned  out  a  decideti  fail- 
ure, in  regard  to  the  nation  as  such,  owing  to  the  opposition  of  its  leaders.     The  ob- 

*  It  is  worth  considering  whether  the  element  of  knowledge  be  not  that  in  which 
the  inferiority  of  the  Baptist  lies.  It  was  from  defective  knowledge — even  according 
to  our  author's  lucid  account  (p.  220) — that  John's  question  was  put.  Nor  can  it  be 
said,  surely,  that  John  was  not  a  son,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  all  believers  ai« 
children  of  God. — J.  H. 


(-11 A  I',   vn.  :  "^'.(-ao.  2-Zo 

ject  Tindorstood  nftei-  all  that  heard  is  John  tlic  Baptist  and  his  preachin<j.  To  justify 
God  is  to  rocoyiiizo  ami  proclaim  by  word  and  deed  tlie  excellence  of  His  wa3'8  for  the 
salv'ati.)a  of  niL'n.  Tiie  expiessioa  :  tiny  have  annulli'd for  ihem.'ielves  (he  divine  decree, 
signifies  that,  althoiii^di  man  cannot  foil  God's  plan  for  the  world,  he  may  render  it 
vain  for  himself.  Ou  tiiis  c  mduct  of  the  rulers,  see  H  :  7.  The  indirect  reproof  ad- 
dressed by  Jesus  to  the  Pharisee  Nicodenius (John  3  :5)for  having  neglected  the  bap- 
tism of  water,  coiuciiies  iu  a  remaikable  manner  with  Ibis  passage  in  Luke. 

In  place  of  tiiese  two  verses,  we  find  in  ^lalthcw  (tl  :  12-15)  a  passage  containing 
Ihe  foiliiwing  thoughts  :  The  appealing  of  John  was  the  chise  of  the  legal  and  pro- 
phetical dispensiiiiun  ;  and  (lie  opening  of  Ihe  Mes-ianiu  kini;dom  look  place  imnn-di- 
ately  after.  Only,  men  must  know  how  to  use  a  holy  violence  iu  order  to  enter  into 
it  (vers.  Vi,  lo).  Jnlm  was  tlieiefore  the  expected  Elijah  :  Blessed  is  lie  wiio  un- 
derstands It  (lers.  14,  lo)  !  Tliese  last  two  veises  occur  again  in  ]\Iatt.  17  :  13,  wheio 
they  are  brought  iu  more  natuially  ;  it  is  probable  that  sunie  similarity  in  the  ideas 
led  the  compiler  lo  place  them  here.  As  to  vers.  13  and  13,  they  are  placed  by  Luke 
in  a  wholly  dillerent  and  very  obscure  connection,  16  :  10.  According  to  Holtzniann, 
it  would  be  Matthew  who  faithfully  leproduces  here  the  C'lmmon  source,  the  Logia  ; 
while  Luke,  not  thinking  the  connection  satisfactory,  substitutes  lor  this  passage 
from  the  Logia  another  taken  from  the  proto-Mark,  wliich  Matthew  introduces  at 
21  -.'SI,  33.  Since,  however,  be  was  unwilling  to  lose  the  passage  omitted  here,  he 
gives  it  another  place,  in  a  very  incomprehensible  context,  it  is  true,  but  with  a  re- 
versal of  the  order  of  the  two  verses,  iu  order  to  make  the  connection  more  intelligi- 
ble Holtzraauu  quite  prides  himself  on  this  explaualion,  and  exclaims  :  "  All  tlie 
difficulties  are  solved.  .     .     This  example  is  very  iustiuciive  as  showing  the  way 

in  which  such  ditHculties  sliould  be  treated  "  (pp.  143-5).  Tiie  only  thing  proved, 
iu  our  opinion,  is,  that  b^--  attempting  lo  explain  the  origin  of  the  Syn.  by  such  manip- 
ulali  )ns  we  become  lost  in  a  iabyrinili  of  improbabilities.  Luke,  forsooth,  look  the 
passage  5  :  13-15  (Matthew)  a.vay  from  itscontext.  because  Iheconuectifiudid  not  aj)- 
pear  t.>  him  satisfactor\^  and  inserted  this  same  passage  iu  hiscAvn  CTOspel,  10  ;  10,  iua 
context  where  it  becomes  m^re  unintelligible  still  !  Is  it  not  much  uii/re  natural  to 
supp)se  tiiat  Matthew's  discourse  was  originally  composed  for  a  collection  of  Login, 
in  which  it  bore  the  title,  "  On  John  the  Baptist, "  and  that  the  compiler  collected 
ua.ier  this  heai  all  the  words  known  to  him  which  Jesus  had  uttered  at  different  limes 
on  this  subject?  As  to  Luke,  he  follows  his  own  sources  of  information,  which,  as 
he  has  told  us,  faithfully  represent  the  oral  tradition,  and  which  furnish  evidence  of 
their  accuracy  at  eveiy  fresh  test. 

Gess  endeavois,  it  is  true,  to  prove  the  superiority  of  Matthew's  text.  Tlie  violent 
(Matt.  11  :  13)  would  lie,  according  to  him.  the  messengers  of  John  the  Baptist,  thus 
designated  on  account  of  the  abruptness  with  which  ihey  had  put  their  cpiestion  lo 
Jesus  before  all  the  people.  And  Jesus  declared  this  zeal  laudable  in  comparison 
with  the  inditference  shown  by  the  people  (vers.  31-35).  But,  1.  How  could  Jesns 
say  of  ihe  disciples  of  John  that  they  were  forcing  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom, 
while  they  trequenlly  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  toward  Hun  (Matt.  <J  :  14  ;  John 
3:26)'?  3.  There  would  be  uo  proportion  between  the  gravity  of  this  !?aying  thus 
understood,  and  that  of  the  declar;itions  which  precede  and  follow  it  upon  the  end  of 
the  prophetic  and  the  opening  of  the  Messianic  era. 

Vers.  31-35.*  The  Application.—"  Whereunto  Ihen  shall  I  liken  the  men  of  this 
generation  ?  and  to  what  are  they  like?  33.  They  are  like  unto  children  sitting  iu 
the  market-place,  and  calling  one  to  auolher,  and  saying,  'W'e  have  piped  unto  you, 
and  ye  have  not  danced  ;  we  have  mourned  to  you,  and  ye  have  not  wept.  33.  For 
John  the  Baptist  came  neither  eating  bread  nor  drinking  wine,  and  ye  say.  He  hath  a 

*  Ver.  81.  The  T.  R.  ut  the  commencement  of  the  verse,  with  some  Mnn.,  etne 
6e  0  Kvpioi.  Ver.  33.  Instead  of  mi  Tisyovaiv,  !**  B.  read  a  ley  si,  D.  L.  some  Mnn. 
T^eyovTEi.  \k.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  omit  vfiiv.  Ver.  35.  Some  Mjj.  several  ]SInn.  omit  na^ruv. 
it.  B.  some  Mnn.  It.  place  it  before  tuv.     St.  reads  epyu^  instead  of  tckvuv. 


^26  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   H'KE. 

devil.  34.  The  Son  of  man  is  come  eating  and  drinking,  and  j^e  say,  Behold  a  glut- 
tonous man  and  a  winel)ibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.  '60.  But  Wisdom 
is  justified  of  all  her  children."  Here  it  is  no  longer  the  ministry  of  John  simply 
that  is  Ihe  subject.  Jesus  is  expressing  His  judgment  of  the  conduct  of  the  genera- 
lion  tiien  living,  wilh  respect  to  the  two  great  divine  messages  with  which  it  had  just 
bien  favored.  There  is  something  severe  in  the  double  question  of  ver.  31.  Jesus 
has  a  difficulty  in  finding  a  compariscm  that  will  adequately  set  forth  the  senseless 
conduct  which  He  has  witnessed.  At  last  His  mind  fixes  on  an  image  which  answers 
to  His  thought.  He  recalls  a  game  at  which  the  children  of  His  time  were  accus- 
tomed to  play,  and  in  which  peihaps  He  had  Himself  in  His  youth  taken  part  of  an 
evening,  in  the  market-place  of  Nazareth.  This  game  bore  some  resemblance  to  that 
W'hicli  we  call  a  charade.  The  players  divided  themselves  into  two  groups,  of  which 
each  one  in  turn  commences  the  representation  of  a  scene  in  ordinary  life,  while  the 
other,  taking  up  the  scene  thus  begun,  finishes  the  representation  of  it.  It  is  not 
therefoie,  as  with  us,  the  mere  guessing  of  a  word  ;  but,  in  conformity  with  the 
moie  dramatic  character  of  the  oiienlal  genius,  a  passing  from  the  position  of  specta- 
tors to  that  of  actors,  so  as  to  finish  the  representation  commenced  by  the  players 
whu  imagined  tiie  scene.  In  this  case  two  attempts  are  made  alternatively,  one  by  each 
of  the  two  gniups  of  children  {■7Tpoa(pai'ovaii>  a/.Tii/Tioci,  calling  one  to  another,  ver.  32)  ; 
but  Avith  equal  want  of  success.  Each  time  the  actors  whose  turn  it  is  to  start  the 
g.uTie  aie  foiled  by  the  disagreeable  humor  of  their  companions,  whose  part  it  is  to 
take  up  the  representation  and  finish  the  scene.  The  first  company  comes  playing  a 
dunce  tune  ;  the  others,  instead  of  rising  and  forming  a  dance,  remain  seated  and  in- 
different. The  latter,  in  their  turn,  indicate  a  scene  of  mourning  ;  the  others,  instead 
of  forming  themselves  into  a  funeral  procession,  assume  a  weary,  sullen  attitude. 
And  thus,  when  the  game  is  over,  each  company  has  reason  to  complain  of  the  other, 
and  say :  "We  have  .  .  ,  you  have  not."  The  general  meaning  is  obvious: 
the  actors,  in  both  cases,  represent  the  two  divine  messengers  joined  by  the  faithful 
folio weis  whu  gathered  about  them  from  the  first  :  John,  with  his  call  to  repentance, 
and  his  train  of  penitents  ;  Jesus,  with  His  promises  of  grace,  and  attended  by  a 
company  of  happy  believers.  But  while  the  means  thej'  employ  are  so  different,  and 
so  opposed  evea,  that  it  seems  that  any  man  who  resists  the  one  must  submit  to  the 
other,  moral  insensibility  and  a  carpmg  spirit  have  reached  such  a  height  in  Israel 
that  they  paralyze  their  effects.*  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  Bleek  give  quite  a  different 
application  of  the  figure  According  to  them,  the  company  which  begins  the  game 
icpresents  the  people,  who  want  to  make  the  divine  messengers  act  according  to  their 
fancy  ;  the  other  com[)any,  which  refuses  to  enter  into  their  humor,  represents  John 
and  Jesus,  who  persevere,  without  deviation,  in  the  path  God  has  marked  out  for 
them.     But  in  this  case  the  blame  in  the  parable  should  fall  not  on  the  second 

*  The  figure,  as  explained  by  M.  Godet,  would  rather  illustrate  a  want  of  sympa- 
thy lietweeu  tlie  disciples  of  John  and  those  of  Jesus,  llian  the  waywardness  and  in- 
difference of  the  Jewish  people  to  God's  messengers.  Suiely  the  difficulty  which  the 
commentators  finf!  here  arises  from  pressing  the  correspondence  of  the  figure  beyond 
the  single  point  of  the  untowardness  of  the  generation  to  which  John  and  Jesus 
preached. — Tu.  [Tlie  tianslator's  \iew  of  j\l.  Godet's  rendering  docs  not  appear  to 
be  well  founded.  He  i«  sunly  light  in  his  view  of  frequent  indefiniteness  in  the  in- 
troductory words — an  indt^finftenPss  belonging  to  the  nature  of  the  ease.  "Tliat  re- 
minds me,"  says  one.  and  ichat  he  .w?/v  indicates  the  point  of  contact,  the  thing  sug- 
gesting and  the  tniiig  suggebti;d. — J.  il.] 


cii.vr.    VII.  :  -ZU-ob.  227 

company,  which  would  l)o  jastitieil  in  not  entering  into  a  i)art  imposed  uprm  them, 
but  on  the  lirst,  wiiich  tries  to  exact  a  tyrannical  compulsion  on  liio  other.  Now  it 
is  not  so  at  all.  It  is  evident  that  those  on  whom  the  blame  falls  arc  the  dissatisfied 
and  peevish  spectatois,  who  each  time  refuse  to  cuter  into  the  pioposed  game  (atnl 
ye  siti/  .  .  .  and  ye  say  .  .  .  vers.  33,  34).  Besides,  when  did  the  people 
seek  to  cxcit  such  an  influeuccon  John  and  Jesus  a3  would  be  indicated  here  ?  Lastly, 
there  is  an  evident  correspoudeuce  between  the  two  reproaches:  "We  have  piped 
.  .  .  we  have  mourned  .  .  ."  and  the  two  facts  :  "  John  came  .  .  .  The 
Son  of  man  is  come  .  .  ."  What  has  led  these  interpreters  astray  is  the  some- 
what inaccurate  f>)rm  in  which  tlie  jvirable  is  introduced  at  ver.  33  :  "  This  general  ion 
is  like  to  children  calling  one  to  another."  But  in  these  preambles  the  connection 
between  the  image  and  llie  idea  is  often  indicated  in  a  concise  and  somewhat  inaccu- 
rate manner.  Tims  Matt.  8  :  24  :  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  man  which 
sowed,"  and  elsewhere.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  ver.  32  is  simply  this:  "The 
conduct  of  the  present  generation  toward  the  messengers  sent  to  it  by  God  is  like 
that  which  takes  place  among  children  who  .  .  ."  By  the  repetition  of  "and 
ye  say"  (vers.  33  and  34),  Jesus  translates,  so  to  speak,  into  words,  the  refusal  of  the 
people  to  enter  mto  the  feeling  of  holy  grief  or  holy  joy  with  which  God  would  im- 
press them. 

But  notwithstanding  this  general  resistance,  divine  wisdom  finds  some  hearts 
which  open  to  its  dilTerent  solicitations,  and  which  justify  by  their  docility  the  con- 
trary methods  it  adopts.  These  Jesus  calls  the  cJdldrai  of  wisdom,  according  to  au 
expression  used  in  the  book  of  Proverbs.  Kai  (ver.  35)  :  "  And  neverlheless. "  The 
preposition  a -(J, /raw,  indicates  that  God's  justification  is  derived  from  these  same 
men,  that  is  to  say,  from  their  repentance  on  hearing  the  reproof  and  threatenings  of 
John,  and  from  their  faith,  resembling  a  joyous  amen,  in  the  promises  of  Jesus. 
HavTuv,  all :  not  one  of  these  children  of  wisdom  remain  behind  ...  all  force 
their  way  into  tlie  kingdom.  The  term  ickdom  recalls  the  word  counsel  (ver.  30)  ; 
tiie  expression  is  justified,  the  justified  of  ver.  29.  This  connection  will  not  allow  of 
the  meaning  being  given  to  ver.  35  which  some  have  proposed  :  "  Divine  wisdom 
has  been  justified  from  the  accusations  (otto)  brought  against  it  by  its  own  children, 
the  Jews."  This  meaning  is  also  excluded  by  the  word  a^?,  which  would  contain 
an  inadmissible  exaggeration  (ver.  20).*  Instead  of  tekvuh,  children,  ^  reads  epyuv, 
works:  "Wisdom  has  derived  its  justification  from  the  excellent  works  which  it 
produces  in  those  who  sul)mit  to  it."  But  the  epithet  ttovtwv,  all,  does  not  suit  this 
sense.  The  reading  ipyui'  is  taken  from  the  text  of  Matthew,  in  ceitaiu  documents 
(i*.  B.  Syr.  Cop.).  It  would  be  more  allowable  in  that  Gospel,  in  which  the  word 
ndvTuv   is  omitted.     But  even  then  it  is  improbable. 

This  discourse  is  one  of  those  which  best  show  what  Jesus  was  as  a  popular 

*  Iloltzinann,  following  Hifzig,  regards  the  word  navTuv,  all,  as  added  by  Luke, 
who  wrongly  applied  (as  we  have  done)  this  expression,  children  of  toisdom,  to  be- 
lie i^ers.  What  wonderful  sagacity  our  critics  have  !  Not  only  do  they  know  more 
tlian  the  evangelists  did  respecting  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Master,  but  they 
have  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  their  exact  terms  !  For  Holtzmann's'sense  ittS 
woidd  Iiave  been  needed  instead  of  oto.  It  is  unnecessary  to  refute  the  opinion  of 
Weizsiicker  and  others,  who  regard  the  question  of  John  the  Bapti-st  as  the  first 
sign  of  A  new-born  faith.  This  opinion  gives  the  lie  to  the  scene  of  the  baptism,  to 
tliL!  testimonies  of  John  tiie  Baptist,  and  to  the  answer  even  of  Jesus  (vers.  23  and 


228  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

speaker.  The  understanding  is  brought  into  phiy,  and  Ihe  curiosity  stimulated  by' 
the  interrogative  form  (vers.  24,  26,  and  81)  ;  and  the  imagiuiition  excited  by  lively 
images,  full  of  charm  (vers.  24,  25,  and  32).  Lastly',  there  is  a  striking  application 
to  the  conscience  :  John  failed  through  his  austerity  ;  I  shall  fail  through  my  gentle- 
ness ;  neither  under  one  form  nor  auolher  will  you  obey  God.  Nevertheless  there 
are  those  whose  conduct  by  condemning  you  justifies  God. 

5.  IVte  Gratitude  of  the  Woman  who  was  a  Sinner:.  7:36-50. — The  following 
narrative  seems  to  have  been  placed  here  as  an  illustration  of  wisdom  being  justified 
by  her  children  (ver.  35),  and  particularly  of  this  last  word  :  all. 

Vers.  36-39.*  The  Offence.  We  are  still  in  that  epoch  of  transition,  when  the 
rupture  between  our  Lord  and  the  Pharisees,  although  already  far  advanced,  was  not 
complete.  A  member  of  this  party  could  still  invite  Him  without  difficulty.  It  has 
been  supposed  that  this  invitation  was  given  with  a  hostile  intention.  But  this 
Pharisee's  own  reflection,  ver.  39,  shows  his  moral  state.  He  was  hesitating  lie- 
tween  the  holy  impression  which  Jesus  made  upon  him,  and  the  antipathy  which  his 
caste  felt  against  Him.  Jesus  speaks  to  him  in  a  tone  so  friendly  and  familiar  that 
it  is  difficult  to  suppose  him  animated  by  malevolent  feelings.  Further,  ver.  43 
proves  unanswerably  that  he  had  received  some  spiritual  benefit  from  Jesus,  and 
that  he  felt  a  certain  amount  uf  gratitude  toward  Him  ;  and  ver.  47  says  expressly 
that  he  loved  Jesus,  although  feebly.  The  entrance  of  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner 
into  such  society  was  an  act  of  great  courage,  for  she  might  expect  to  be  ignomini- 
ously  sent  away.  The  power  of  a  gratitude  that  kiicw  no  bounds  for  a  priceless 
beueflt  which  she  had  received  from  the  Saviour  can  alone  explain  her  conduct. 
Ver.  42  shows  wliat  this  benefit  was.  It  was  the  pardon  of  her  numerous  and  fearful 
sins.  "Was  it  on  hearing  Him  preach,  or  in  a  private  interview,  or  through  one  of 
those  looks  of  Jesus,  which  for  broken  hearts  were  like  a  ray  from  heaven  .  .  .  ? 
She  hud  received  from  Him  the  joy  of  salvation  ;  and  the  perfume  which  she  brought 
with  her  was  the  emblem  of  her  ardent  gratitude  for  this  unspeakable  gift.  If  we 
adopt  the  Alex,  reading,  the  sense  is  :  "  A  woman  who  was  a  sinner  in  that  citj'," 
that  is  to  say,  who  practised  in  that  very  citj'  her  shameful  profession.  The  received 
reading  :  "  There  was  in  the  city  a  woman  that  was  a  sinner,"  is  less  harsh.  'A/mp- 
TuXoS  a  sinner,  in  the  same  superlative  sense  in  which  the  Jews  thought  (hey  might 
apply  this  epithet  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  2  :  15).  Mvpov  denotes  any  kind  of  odoriferous 
vegetable  essence,  particularly  that  of  the  myrtle.  As  it  was  the  custom  when  at 
table  to  recline  upon  a  couch,  the  feet  being  directed  backward,  and  without  their 
sandals,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  this  woman  from  coming  up  to  Jesus  and 
anointing  His  feet.  But  just  when  she  was  preparing  to  pay  Him  this  homage,  she 
burst  into  tears  at  remembrance  of  her  faults.  Her  tears  streamed  down  upon  the 
Saviour's  feet,  and  having  no  cloth  to  wipe  them,  she  promptly  loosed  her  hair,  and 
with  that  supplied  its  place.  In  order  to  duly  appreciate  this  act,  we  must  remember 
that  among  the  .lews  it  was  one  of  the  greatest  huniiliations  for  a  woman  to  be  seen 
in  public  with  her  hair  down.f  The  n's  w>,o  (ver.  39),  refers  to  the  name  and  family, 
and  the  TroranT/,  what,  to  the  character  and  conduct. 

*  Ver.  36.  S^.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  It"''"?,  some  Mnn.,  mv  oikov  jristead  of  ttjv  oiKiav.  ^. 
B.  D.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mini.,  KaTeK'Ai67i  instead  of  avFK?uH7i.  Ver.  37.  ».  B.  L.  Z.  If'^i. 
place  jyrtc  v^  after  ywrj,  and  not  after  ev  ttj  noXei.  Ver.  38.  i^*  A.  D.  L.  X.,  t^efiaaaev 
instead  of  e^e^a^sv. 

f  See  my  "  Commentaire  sur  I'Evangile  de  St.  Jean,"  chap.  xii.  3. 


CHAP.   VIT.  :  ;](i-17.  'Z'Zd 

Vers.  40-4o.*  77>c  rarahJc.—ll  this  man  wanted  a  proof  of  tlio  proplictic  gift  of 
Jcpus,  he  received  it  instaull}'  in  the  following  parahle,  which  so  exactly  meets  his 
thoughts  and  secret  questions.  The  form  of  the  following  conversation  is  kindly, 
familiar,  and  even  slightly  humorous.  It  is  just  the  tone  of  the  Socratic  irony.  I 
The  denarius  was  equivalent  to  about  three  farthings  ;  the  larger  of  the  two  sums 
••xmouuted,  therefore,  to  about  £1(5.  the  smaller  to  o2s.  The  former  represents  the 
enormous  amount  of  sins  to  which  this  sinful  woman  pleaded  gviilty,  and  wliicii  Jesus 
had  pardoned  ;  the  latter,  the  few  infractions  of  the  law  for  which  the  Pharisee 
reproached  himself,  and  from  the  burden  of  which  .Jesus  had  also  released  him. 
'OoOcJ;  inpirac  :  "  iJioii  Iinst  rir/hUi/jiidffcd  ;  and  in  judging  so  rightly,  thou  hast  con- 
demned thyself."  It  is  the  Tvdw  opOcJi  of  Socrates,  when  he  had  caught  his  interlocu- 
tor in  his  net.  But  that  which  establishes  such  an  immeasurable  distance  between 
Jesus  and  the  Greek  sage  is  the  way  in  which  Jesus  identities  Himself,  both  here 
and  in  what  follows,  with  the  offended  God  who  pardons  and  who  becomes  the 
object  of  the  sinner's  grateful  love. 

A''ers.  44-47.f  The  Application. — Jesus  follows  an  order  the  inverse  of  that  which 
He  had  taken  in  the  parable.  In  the  latter  He  descends  from  the  cause  to  the  effect, 
from  the  debt  remitted  to  the  gratitude  experienced.  In  the  application,  on  the  con- 
trary. He  ascends  from  the  effect  to  the  cause.  For  the  effect  is  evident,  and  conies 
under  the  observation  of  the  senses  {3'AenEii).  Jesus  describes  it,  vers.  44-46,  while 
the  cause  is  concealed  (ver.  47),  and  can  only  be  got  at  by  means  of  the  principle 
which  forms  the  substance  of  the  i)arable.  During  the  first  part  of  the  conversation 
Jesus  was  turned  toward  Simon.  He  now  turns  toward  the  woman  whom  He  is 
about  to  make  the  subject  of  His  demonstration.  Jesus  had  not  complained  of  the 
want  of  respect  and  the  impoliteness  of  His  host.  But  lie  had  noticed  them,  and 
felt  them  deeply.  And  now  what  a  contrast  He  draws  between  the  cold  and  meas- 
ured welcome  of  the  Pharisee,  who  appeared  to  think  that  it  was  honor  enough  to 
admit  Him  to  his  table,  and  the  love  shown  by  this  woraau  that  was  a  sinner  !  The 
customary  bath  for  the  feet  had  been  omitted  by  the  one.  while  copious  tears  were 
showered  upon  His  feet  by  the  other  ;  the  usual  kiss  with  which  the  host  received 
his  guests  Simon  had  neglected,  while  the  woman  had  covered  His  feet  with  kisses  ; 
the  precious  perfume  with  which  it  was  usual  to  aooint  an  honored  guest  on  a  festive 
day  (Ps.  23  :  5)  he  had  withheld,  but  she  had  more  than  made  up  for  the  omission. 
In  fact,  it  is  not  Simon,  it  is  she  who  has  done  Jesus  the  honors  of  the  house  !  The 
omission  of  riji  KetpaATjc  (ver.  44)  in  the  Alex.,  "  [the  hairs]  of  her  head,''  is  probably 
the  result  of  negligence.  The  word  perfectly  suits  the  conte.xt  ;  the  head,  as  the 
most  noble  part  of  the  bod}',  is  opposed  to  the /ee^  of  Jesus.  The  reading  e/avPT^fi^, 
"  [e?er  since]  Kite  entered,"  found  in  one  Mn.,  has  at  first  glance  something  taking 
about  it.  But  it  has  too  little  support  ;  and  the  T.  R.,  "  ever  since  J  entered,"  is  in 
reality  preferable.  Jesus  thereby  reminds  Simon  of  the  moment  when  He  came  under 
his  roof,  and  when  He  had  a  right  to  e.xpect  those  marks  of  respect  and  affection 
■which  had  been  neglected.  The  woman  had  followed  Jesus  so  closely  that  she  had 
all  but  entered  with  Him  ;  there  she  was,  the  moment  He  was  set  at  the  table,  to  pay 
Him  homage.     From  this  visible  effect— the  total  difference  between  the  love  of  the 

*  Ver.  42.  !*.  B.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  omit  et-f. 

+  Ver.  44.  rr^i  /cepa/?;?,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  11  Mjj.  after  Ooi^w,  is 
omitted  by  11  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  Syr"'''.  It.,  etc'  Ver.  45.  L*  some  Mnn.  lt""i.  read 
eia>iMtv  instead  of  einr/Mov.     Ver.  47.  !**,  ei-jrov  instead  of  /eyu. 


230  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

one  and  the  love  of  the  other,  Jesus  ascends,  ver.  47,  to  its  hidden  cause — the  differ- 
ence in  the  measure  of  forgiveness  accorded  to  them  respectively.  Ov  x'^pi^^,  where- 
fore; properly,  au  account  of  which,  that  is  to  say,  of  this  contrast  between  ihe 
respective  exhibitions  of  your  gratitude  (vers.  44-46).  This  conjunction  is  tlie  in- 
verse of  the  therefore  in  ver.  43,  which  led  from  the  cause  to  the  foreseen  effect.  We 
might  make  this  wherefore  bear  upon  the  priucipal  idea,"  Her  sins  are  forgiven  her." 
lu  that  case  we  should  have  to  regatd  the  words  'Aiyu  aui,  I  say  unto  thee,  as  an 
inserted  phrase,  and  the  last  proposition  as  an  exegetical  explanation  of  this  where- 
fore :  "  Wherefore  I  say  unto  thee,  her  many  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that  because  she 
loved  much."  But  we  may  also  malce  the  wherefore  bear  directly  on  "  I  say  unto 
thee,"  and  make  all  the  rest  of  tiie  verse  the  complement  of  this  veib  :  "  Wherefore 
I  say  unto  thee,  that  her  many  sins  are  forgiven  her,  because  tliat  .  .  ."  The 
latter  is  evidently  the  more  simple  construction.  The  reading,  1  said  unto  thee,  of  !!^, 
would  indicate  that  this  truth  was  already  contained  in  this  parable.  It  has  neither 
authority  nor  probability.  How  should  we  understand  the  words,  for  she  lovtd  much? 
Is  love,  according  to  Jesus,  the  cause  of  forgiveness?  Catholic  interpreters,  and 
even  many  Protestants,  understand  the  wurds  in  this  sense  :  God  forgives  us  much 
when  we  love  much  ;  little,  if  we  love  little.  But,  1.  In  this  case  there  is  no  cuhe- 
lence  whatever  between  the  paral)le  audits  application.  On  this  principle,  Jesus 
should  not  have  asked,  ver.  42,  "  Which  of  them  ^dUI  love  Him  most  ?"  but,  "  Which 
then  fowcZ  Him  most  ?"  The  remission  of  the  two  debts  of  such  different  amounts 
would  result  from  the  different  degrees  of  love  in  the  two  debtors  ;  while,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  the  difference  between  the  debts  remitted  which  produces  the  different 
amount  of  gratitude.  2.  Tliere  would  be,  if  possible,  a  more  striking  incoherence 
still  between  the  first  part  of  the  application,  ver.  47«,  and  the  second,  ver.  Alb  :  "  To 
whom  little  is  forgiven,  the  same  lovelh  little."  To  l)e  logical.  Jesus  should  have 
said  precisely  the  contrary  :  "  Who  loves  little,  to  him  little  is  forgiven."  3.  The 
words,  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee  (ver.  50),  clearly  show  what,  in  Jesus'  view,  was  the 
principle  on  which  forgiveness  was  granted  to  this  woman  ;  it  was  faith,  not  love. 
We  must  not  forget  that  on,  because,  frequently  expresses,  just  as  our  for  does,  not 
the  relation  of  the  effect  to  its  cause,  but  the  relation  (purely  logical)  of  the  proof  to 
the  thing  proved.  We  may  say.  It  is  liiiht,  for  the  sun  is  risen  ;  but  we  may  also 
say,  The  sun  is  risen,  for  [I  say  this  because]  it  is  light.  So  in  this  passage  the  otl, 
because,  for,  may,  and,  according  to  what  precedes  and  follows,  must  mean  :  "  I  say 
unto  thee  that  her  many  sins  are  forgiven,  as  thou  must  infer  from  this,  that  she  loved 
much."  Thus  all  is  consistent,  the  application  with  the  parable,  this  saying  with  the 
words  that  follow,  and  Jesus  with  Himself  and  with  St.  Paul.  Ver.  475  contains  the 
other  side  of  the  application  of  this  same  principle  :  the  less  forgiveness,  the  less  love. 
This  is  addressed  to  Simon.  But  with  delicacy  of  feeling  Jesus  gives  this  severe 
truth  tlie  form  of  a  general  proposition,  "  Ha  to  lohom  .  .  .  ;"  just  as  He  also  did 
with  Nicodemus,  "  Except  a  man  be  born     .     .     ."  (John  3  :  3). 

The  thought  expressed  in  this  ver.  47  raises  two  ditficultics  :  1.  May  forgiveness 
be  only  partial  ?  Then  there  would  be  men  half-saved  and  half-lost  !  2.  Is  it  neces- 
sary to  have  sinned  deeply  in  order  to  love  much  ?  The  real  forgiveness  of  the  least 
sin  certainly  contains  in  germ  a  complete  salvation,  but  only  in  germ.  If  faith  is 
maintained  and  grows,  this  forgiveness  will  gradually  extend  to  all  the  sins  of  a  man's 
life,  just  as  they  will  then  become  more  thorougiily  known  and  acknowledged.  The 
first  forgiveness  is  the  pledge  of  all  the  rest.     In  the  contrary  case,  the  forgiveness 


cnAP.  vii.  :  4S-oO.  231 

already  grantt'd  will  be  witbdrawn,  just  as  represented  in  the  parable  of  the  wicked 
debtor,  Malt.  18  ;  and  the  work  of  grace,  instead  of  becoming  complete,  will  prove 
abortive.  A\l  is  transition  here  below,  free  transition,  either  to  perfect  salvation  or 
to  complete  coridemnation.  As  to  the  great  amount  of  sin  necessary  in  order  to  loving 
much,  we  need  add  nothing  to  what  each  of  us  already  has  ;  it  is  sulliciint  to  estimate 
accurately  what  we  have.  What  is  wanting  to  the  best  of  us.  in  order  to  love  xuucii, 
is  not  sin,  but  the  knowledge  of  it. 

Vers.  48-50.  Condasioii.  Bleek  has  inferred  from  vcr.  48,  thy  sins  arcforc/ivcih  ( 
thee,  that  until  this  moment  the  woman  had  not  obtained  forgiveness.  This  supposi- 
tion is  excluded  by  all  that  precedes.  Bleek  forgets  that  (kpsuivtul  is  a  perfect  indica- 
ting an  actual  state  resulting  from  an  act  accomplished  at  some  indefinite  time  in  the 
past.  Having  regard  to  the  Pharisaical  denials  of  the  persons  composing  the  assem- 
bly, and  to  tiie  doubts  which  might  arise  in  the  heart  of  the  sinning  woman  herself, 
Jesus  renews  to  her  the  assurance  of  the  divine  fact  of  which  she  had  within  her  the 
witness  and  warrant.  This  direct  and  personal  declaration  corresponds  with  tlirj 
inward  witness  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  our  own  experience,  after  we  have  embraced 
the  promises  of  the  Word  (Eph.  1  :  13).  On  the  objection,  ver.  4U,  couip.  ver.  21. 
Krt/,  even  ;  besides  all  the  other  extraordinary  things  He  does.  Jesus  continues  as  if 
He  had  not  heard,  but  all  the  while  taking  account  of  what  was  being  said  around 
Him  («n-£  6e,  "but  He  said")  .  AVhile  addressing  the  woman  He  shows  the  people 
assembled  the  firm  foundation  on  which  her  forgiveness  rests.  She  has  the  benefit  of 
this  decree  :  Whosoever  believeth  is  saved.  Let  her  go  away,  then,  with  her  treas- 
ure, her  peace,  in  spite  of  all  their  pharisaical  murmurs  !  Eif  elfjr/vjjv,  in  peace,  and 
to  enjoy  peace. 

This  beautiful  narrative,  preserved  by  Luke  alone,  contains  the  two  essential  clc- 
menls  of  what  is  called  Paulinism — the  freeuess  and  universality  of  salvation.  Does 
it  follow  from  this  that  it  was  invented  -posterior  to  Paul  in  order  to  set  forth  IhesR 
great  principK'S  ?  It  simply  proves  that  it  was  Luke's  intention,  as  he  said  at  the 
begiuning  (1  :4),  to  show  by  his  Gospel,  that  the  doctrine  so  clearly  expressed  and  so 
earnestly  preached  by  Paul  was  already  contained  in  germ  in  all  the  acts  and  teaching 
of  Jesus  ;  that  t/ie  Gospel  of  Paul  is  nothing  but  the  application  of  the  principles 
previously  laid  down  by  the  Lord  Himself. 

A  very  similar  narrative  to  this  is  found  in  the  other  three  Gnspels,  but  assigned 
to  a  mucii  hiler  lime — to  the  Passion  week.  Mary,  a  sister  of  La/arus,  anoints  Jesus 
at  a  repast  which  is  given  Him  by  the  people  of  Bethany  (Matt.  2()  :  6,  H  seq.  :  Mark 
14  :  3,  et  seq.  ;  John'"l2  :  1,  et  seq.).  A  great  number  of  interpreters  agr-ee  that  this 
incident  is  the  same  as  that  we  have  just  been  considering  in  Luke.  "They  rciv  on 
tlie  similarity  of  the  act,  on  the  circumstance  that  Luke  does  not  rehile  the  anointing 
at  Bethany  ;  and  tiiat,  on  the  other  band,  the  three  other  evangelists  do  not  mention 
this  in  Galilee  ,  and  lastly,  on  the  fact  that  in  both  cases  the  owner  of  the  house 
where  the  repast  is  given  Itears  the  name  of  Simon  (Luke  5  :  40  ;  Malt.  26  :  6  ;  Mark 
14  :  3).  These  reasons,  doubtless,  have  their  weight  ;  but  they  are  not  decisive. 
The  act  of  anointing  was  associated  with  such  a  commnn  usage  on  festive  occasions 
(Luke  5  :  46  ;  Ps.  23  .  5),  that  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  it  was 
repeated.  The  causes  of  the  omissjou  of  a  narrative  in  one  or  two  of  the  evangelists 
are  too  accidental  for  us  to  be  a''l(!  to  base  any  solid  conclusion  upon  it.  We  need 
onlv  refer  to  the  omission  in  Matthew  of  I  he  healing  of  the  possessed  at  Capernaum, 
and  of  the  healing  of  tlie  centurion's  servant  in  Mark,  omissions  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  account  for.  As  to  the  name  Simon,  it  was  so  common,  that  out  of  the  small 
number  of  persons  designated  by  name  in  the  N.  T. ,  there  are  no  less  than  fifteen 
Sim. JUS  !     The  reasons  in  favor  of  the  difl'crcnce  of  the  two  incidents  arc  the  fiJLuv- 


2'3'Z  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.  LUKE. 

ing  ;  1st.  The  difference  of  place — Galilee  in  Luke  ;  in  the  other  three,  Judsea.  This 
reason  is  of  secondary  value,  it  is  true,  because  in  chap.  10  Luke  appears  to  place 
the  visit  of  Jesus  to  Martha  and  Mary  in  the  midst  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  2d. 
The  dillereiice  of  time.  Sd.  The  difference  of  persons  :  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner, 
ia  Liilie,  is  a  .stnuiger  in  the  house  of  the  host  (ver.  87,  "  a  woman  of  the  city"),  and 
iSunuu  himself  regards  her  as  such,  and  as  altogether  unknown  to  Jesus  (ver.  31))  ; 
Mary,  on  tlie  conliary,  belongs  to  a  beloved  family,  which  habitually  received  Jtsus 
under  their  ruof.  Besides,  we  must  always  feel  a  repugnance  to  identify  Mary  the 
itiister  of  Luzaius,  as  we  know  her  in  Ji)hn  11  and  Luke  lU  :  38-42,  with  a  woman  ui 
ill  fame.  Uli.  The  most  important  difference  re-jpecls  what  was  said  :  at  Belhany,  a 
complaint  from  Judas  on  behalf  of  the  poor,  and  a  reply  from  Jesus  announcing  His 
approaching  death  ;  in  Gahlee,  the  great  evangelical  declaration,  Ihat  love  is  the  fiuit 
of  forgiveuess,  which  is  bestowed  on  the  simple  condition  of  faith.  Whal  agreement 
can  he  discovered  between  these  two  conversations  ?  We  may  conceive  uf  very  con- 
siderable alterations  being  made  by  tradition  in  the  historical  framewoik  of  a  narra- 
tive. But  by  what  marvellous  process  could  one  of  these  two  conversations  have 
been  transformed  into  the  other  ? 

6.  The  Women  w1i/>  ministered  to  Jesus :  8  : 1-3. — By  the  side  of  the  high  religious 
problems  raised  by  the  life  of  Jesus,  there  is  a  question,  seldom  considered,  which 
nevertheless  possesses  some  interest  :  How  did  Jesus  find  the  means  of  subsistence 
during  the  two  or  three  years  that  His  miuistry  lasted  V  He  had  given  up  His  earthly 
occupation.  He  deliberately  refrained  from  using  His  miraculous  power  to  supply 
His  necessities.  Further,  He  was  not  alone  ;  He  was  constantly  accompanied  by 
twelve  men,  who  had  also  abandoned  their  trade,  and  whose  maintenance  He  had 
taken  on  Himself  in  calling  them  to  follow  Him.  The  wants  of  this  itinerant  society 
were  met  out  of  a  common  x^urse  (John  13  :  29)  ;  the  same  source  furnished  their 
alms  to  the  poor  (John  12  :  6).  But  how  was  this  purse  itself  filled  ?  The  problem 
is  partly,  but  not  completely,  explained  by  hospitality.  Had  He  not  various  npeds, 
of  clothing,  etc.  ?  The  true  answer  to  this  question  is  furnished  by  this  passage, 
which  possesses,  therefore,  considerable  interest.  Jesus  said  :  "  Seek  first  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  other  things  shall  be  added  unto  you."  He  also  said  :  "  There  is 
none  that  leaves  father,  mother,  .  .  .  house,  lands  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  who 
does  not  find  a  hundred  times  more."  He  derived  these  precepts  from  His  daily 
experience.  Tiie  grateful  love  of  those  whom  He  filled  with  His  spiritual  riche-s 
provided  for  His  temporal  nece.ssitxes,  as  well  as  for  those  of  His  disciples.  Some 
pious  women  spontaneously  rendered  Him  the  services  of  mother  and  sisters. 

This  passage  would  suffice  to  prove  the  excellence  of  Luke's  sources  ;  their  orig- 
inality,  for  the  other  evangelists  furnish  no  similar  information  ;  their  exactness,  for 
who  would  have  invented  such  simple  and  positive  details,  with  the  names  and  rank 
of  these  women  ?  and  their  purity,  for  what  can  be  further  removed  from  false  mar- 
vels and  legendary  fictions  than  this  perfectly  natural  and  prosaic  account  of  the 
Lord's  means  of  subsistence  during  the  course  of  His  ministry  ? 

Vers.  1-3.*  Luke  indicates  this  time  as  a  distinctly  marked  epoch  in  the  ministry 
of  the  Lord.  He  ceases  to  make  Capernaum,  His  ISia  ttoAj?,  Ris  men  city  (Matt.  9:1). 
the  centre  of  His  activity  ;  He  adopts  an  altogether  itinerant  mode  of  life,  and  lilcr- 
nlly  has  no  place  where  to  lay  His  head.  It  is  this  change  in  His  mode  of  living, 
carried  out  at  this  time,  which  induces  Lnke  to  place  here  this  glimpse  into  the  means 

*  Ver.  3.  Instead  of  avru.  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  J*.  A.  L.  M.  X.  FT. 
several  Mnn.  It"'"!.,  ai^roiS  is  read  in  13  Mjj.  90  Mnn.  Syr.  It"""!.  Or.  Aug.  The 
Mss.  vary  lietwcen  e«  and  cto. 


CHAP.  VIII.  :  1-3.  233 

of  His  itinlerial  support.  The  aor.  kyevero,  it  came  to  pass  (ver.  1),  itiilicntcs  a  definite 
time.  The  nai  before  ai'ro?,  as  the  sign  of  the  apodosis,  belra3^s  an  Aranueau  source. 
The  imperf.  (hMeve,  lie  icent  throughout,  denotes  a  slow  and  conlinuuus  mode  of 
travelling.  The  preposition  kotu  expresses  the  particular  care  whicii  lie  bestowed 
on  every  place,  whither  large  (citi/)  or  small  (rilltu/c).  Everywhere  He  gave  Himself 
time  to  stay.  To  the  general  idea  of  a  proclamation,  expressed  by  the  verb  njipvaneiv, 
to  preach,  the  second  verb,  to  evangelize,  to  announce  the  glad  tidings  of  the  kingdom, 
adds  the  idea  of  a  prjclamatiou  oi  grace  as  the  prevailing  character  of  His  teaching. 
The  Twelve  iiccompanied  Him.  What  a  strange  sight  this  little  band  presented,  [luss- 
iug  through  the  cities  and  country  as  a  number  of  members  of  the  heavenly  kingdom, 
entirely  given  up  to  the  work  of  spreading  and  celebrating  salvation  !  Had  the 
world  ever  seen  anylhmg  like  it?  Among  the  women  who  accompanied  this  band, 
filling  the  humble  office  of  ser^'anls,  Luke  makes  special  meution  first  of  Mary,  sur- 
named  Magdnlcne.  This  surname  is  probably  derived  from  her  being  originally  from 
TVIngilala,  a  town  situated  on  the  western  shore  of  the  sea  of  Galilee  (^latt.  15  :  39), 
the  situation  of  which  to  the  north  of  Tiberias  is  still  indicated  at  the  present  day  b}' 
a  village  named  ElMegdil  {the  toioer).  The  seven  demons  (Mark  16  :  9)  denote  with- 
out doubt  the  culminating  point  of  her  possession,  resulting  from  a  series  of  attacks, 
each  of  which  had  aggravated  the  evil  (Luke  11  :  24-26).  It  is  without  the  least 
foundation  that  tradilion  identifies  3Iar3'  Magdalene  with  the  penitent  sinner  of  chap. 
7.  Possession,  which  is  a  disease  (see  4: 33),  has  been  wrongi}'  confounc^ed  with  a 
slate  of  moral  corruption.  The  surname,  of  Magdala,  is  intended  to  distinguish  this 
Mary  from  all  the  others  of  this  name,  more  particularly  from  her  of  Bethany. 
Chuza  was  probably  intrusted  with  some  ofiice  in  the  household  of  Herod  Antipas. 
Might  he  n  it  be  that  3aai/.iKd<^,  cmtrt  lord,  whose  sou  Jesus  had  healed  (.lohn  4),  and 
who  had  bt'lievred  tcith  aU  his  house?  We  know  nothing  of  Susanna  and  the  other 
■women.  klrivE<i  reminds  us  that  it  was  in  the  capacity  of  servants  that  they  accom- 
panied Him.  Aja/comi',  to  serve,  here  denotes  pecuniary  assistance,  as  Rom.  15  :  25, 
and  also  the  personal  attentions  which  might  be  rendered  by  a  mother  or  sisters  (ver. 
21).  The  reading  of  the  T.  R.,  avrC),  who  served  Him,  may  be  a  correction  in  accord- 
ance with  Matt.  27  :  55,  Mark  15  :  41  ;  but  the  reading  avnn^,  who  served  them,  is  the 
more  probable  one  according  to  ver.  1  (the  Twelvt)  and  4  :  39. 

What  a  Messiah  for  the  eye  of  flesh,  this  being  living  on  the  charity  of  men  !  But 
what  a  Messiah  for  the  spiritual  eye,  this  Son  cf  God  living  on  the  love  of  those  to 
whom  His  own  love  is  giving  life  !  What  an  interchange  of  good  offices  between 
heaven  and  earth  goes  on  around  His  person  ! 

7  The  Parable  of  the  Soicer  :  8:4-18. — The  preceding  passage  indicated  a  change 
in  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  outward  life.  The  following  passage  indicates  a  change  in 
Ills  mode  of  teaching  ;  a  crisis,  therefore,  has  been  reached.  The  seipiel  will  make 
us  acquainted  with  its  nature.  Before  this,  Je.'^us  liad  spoken  a  few  paral)U'S 
(5  :  36-39.  6  :  39,  47,  et  seq.).  From  now,  and  for  a  very  long  time,  He  habitualiy  maU(>s 
u.se  of  th's  method.  The  parable  pos.sesses  the  double  property  of  making  an  indelililo 
impression  of  the  truth  on  the  mind  of  him  who  is  able  to  perceive  it  tlirough  the 
figure  in  which  it  is  clothed,  and  of  veiling  it  from  the  ol)servation  of  the  inattentive 
or  indolent  hearer  whose  mind  makes  no  effort  to  penetrate  this  covering.  It  is  thus 
udmirabl}' fitted  for  making  a  selection  from  the  liearers.  The  term  ^wz-rtW*"  (from 
irapaSa/.y.siv,  to  place  side  b>/  side)  denotes  a  form  of  instruction  in  whici;,  by  the  side  of 
the  truth,   is  placed  the  image   which  represents   it.     This  is  also  the  meaning  of 


234  COMMENTARY   ON    ST.   LUKE. 

irnooiiuia,  a  patli  bj'  the  side  of  tlie  high  roacl.  The  parable  bears  a  close  resemblance 
to  the  fable  :  but  it  differs  from  it  in  two  respects,  one  of  substance,  the  other  of  foim. 
While  the  fi.bie  refers  to  tlie  relations  of  men  witli  one  another,  and  to  the  moral 
laws  which  regulate  these  relations,  the  parable  dials  with  man's  relations  wilh  God, 
and  with  the  Ijfty  principles  by  which  they  are  governed.  The  loftier  sphere  ia 
■which  the  parable  moves  determines  the  difference  of  form  which  distinguishes  it 
fi-oni  the  fable  The  fable  partakes  of  a  humorous  character  ;  it  is  quite  allowable, 
therefore,  in  it  to  make  plants  and  animals  speak.  The  aim  of  the  parable  is  too 
serious  to  comport  with  such  fictions.  There  must  be  nothing  in  the  picture  to  violate 
probability.  Animals  and  material  objects  may  be  employed  in  the  parable  (sheep, 
leaven)  ;  but  they  uuist  not  assume  a  character  contrary  to  their  actual  nature.  The 
parable  was  the  m  jst  natural  made  of  teacliiiiu-  fui  Jesus  to  adopt.  Living  in  the 
incessant  contemplaiion  of  the  divine  world,  which  lay  open  to  His  inward  sense, 
finding  Himself  at  tbe  same  time  also  in  constant  intercourse  with  the  external  world, 
which  He  observed  with  intelligent  and  calm  attention,  He  was  necessatily  led  to 
make  constant  comparisons  of  these  two  spheres,  and  to  perceive  the  innumerable 
analogies  which  exist  between  them. 

The  fiist  parable  He  uttered  that  was  fully  worked  out,  a^ipears  to  have  been  this 
of  the  sower.  Matthew  makes  it  the  opening  paraltle  of  the  iarge  collection  in  chap. 
13.  Mark  assigns  it  a  similar  place  at  the  head  of  a  moie  limited  collection,  chap. 
4.  It  is  the  only  one  besides  that  of  the  vine-dressers,  a  parable  belonging  to  our 
Lord's  last  days,  which  has  been  preserved  in  all  the  three  Syn.  In  all  three,  the 
general  explanation,  which  Jesus  gives  His  disciples  once  for  all,  as  to  why  He 
employs  this  form  of  teaching,  is  connected  with  the  account  of  this  parable.  It 
appears,  therefore,  that  it  was  the  first  complete  similitude  that  He  offered  them. 
Moreover,  it  was  the  one  which  seems  to  have  struck  the  disciples  the  mo.st,  and 
which  was  most  frequently  told  in  the  oral  tradition  ;  this  explains  its  reproduction 
by  our  three  evangelists. 

The  following  passage  contains  :  1st.  The  parable  (vers.  4-8)  ;  2cl.  The  explana- 
tionsgivenby  Jesus  respecting  this  mode  of  teachiog  (vers.  9  and  10)  ;  '6d.  The  expo- 
sition of  the  parable  (vers.  11-15)  ;  AtJi.  A  warning  to  the  apostles  as  to  the  course 
they  must  pursue  m  regard  to  truths  which  Jesus  teaches  them  in  this  way  (vers. 
lG-18). 

1st.  Vers.  4-8.*  The  Parable. — Matthew  and  Mark  place  this  parable  after  the 
visit'  of  the  mother  and  brethren  of  Jesus  CShM.  13  :  1  ;  Mark  4  :  1).  In  Luke  it 
immediately  precedes  the  same  narrative  (ver.  19,  et  seq.).  This  connection  may  be 
the  result  of  a  real  chronological  relation,  or  of  a  moral  relation  as  well  ;  comp.  ver. 
15,  "  those  who  keep  the  word  and  biing  forth  fruit,"  with  ver.  21,  "  those  who  hear 
the  word  of  God  and  practise  it."  We  might  make  nJv  ennrupEvoiiivb)v,  coming 
together  unto  nim,  the  comi)lemPnt  of  ox'^ov.  a  multitude,  ]iy  g\v'wg  na't  the  sense  of 
even.  But  tbis  construction  is  forced  the  two  genitives,  tue  parallel.  Luke's  mean- 
ing is  :  "  As  a  great  multitude  was  gathered  about  Him,  and  as  it  was  continually 
increasinsr,  owing  to  fresh  additions,  which  were  ariiping  mote  or  less  from  every 
city."  Tliis  prefatory  remaik  contains  a  great  deal.  Jesus  gres  through  the  country 
stopping  at  every  place  ;  the  Twelve  are  His  immediate  attendants  ;  the  cities  are 

*  Ver.  4.  i*.  some  Mnn. ,  cwovto^.  Ver.  6.  Ti.  L.  R.  Z.,  KaTen-eGEV  instead  of 
cTTeaFv.  Ver.  8.  Almnst  all  the  Mjj.  read  £tS  instead  of  £~i,  which  is  the  reading  of 
T.  R.  with  D.  and  some  Mnn. 


CHAP.  YiTi.  :  4-8.  2'.)o 

emptied,  so  to  speak  ;  their  entire  populations  accompany  Ilim,  Wo  have  evidently 
icaila-tl  a  crisis.  But  the  more  tiie  nunil)erof  His  bearers  increases,  the  more  clumly 
Jesus  sees  that  the  time  has  come  to  set  some  siftinij;  process  to  work  amouj;-  tliem  ; 
if,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  necessar}'  to  draw  the  spiiitual  into  closer  attachment,  on 
the  other,  it  is  of  importance  to  keep  the  carnal  at  a  distance.  The  parables,  in  gen- 
eral, have  this  tendency  ;  that  of  the  sower,  by  its  very  meaning,  has  a  direct  appli- 
cation to  this  slate  of  Ibinj^s.  It  appears  from  ]M,itlhew  and  ]\liirk  tiiat  Jesus  was 
seated  in  a  vessul  on  the  sea-sliore.  and  that  from  this  kind  of  pulpit  He  taught  tiio 
people  who  stood  upon  the  banks.  Hi  could  therefore  easily  discern  the  various 
expressions  of  the  persons  composing  the  multitude.  The  art.  6  before  cTreipuv  desig- 
nates that  one  of  the  servants  who  has  been  intrusted  with  this  work.  Cess  points 
out  the  contrast  between  this  sower,  who  commences  the  woik  of  establishing  tiic 
kingdom  of  God  by  means  of  tlie  Word  alone,  and  the  ]\Icssiah,  as  pictured  by  John 
the  Baptist,  Jmvinr/  UiHfiui  in  His  hand.  Jesus  divides  His  hearers  into  four  classes, 
and  compares  them  to  four  kinds  of  soil,  of  which  the  surrounding  country  furnished 
Him  with  illustrations  at  the  very  time  He  was  speaking.  From  the  edge  of  the 
lake  the  soil  rises  very  rapidly  ;  now,  on  such  slopes,  it  easily  happens  that  the  higher 
portion  of  a  field  has  onl3'-a  thin  layer  of  mould,  while,  going  down  toward  the  plain,  the 
bed  of  earth  becomes  deeper.  Hence  the  differences  indicated.  The  first  soil 
{by  the  wai/side)  is  the  part  nearest  the  path  which  is  freely  used  by  passers-b3\  The 
second  (on  the  rock,  according  to  Luke  ;  in  stony  jilnces,  in  Matthew  and  Mark)  dues 
wii  denote,  as  is  often  thought,  a  soil  full  of  stones  ;  but,  as  is  well  expressed  by 
Luke,  and  confirmed  by  the  explanation,  because  there  'icas  no  depth  of  airlh  (^Litthew 
and  Mark),  that  portion  of  the  field  where  the  rock  is  only  covered  witli  a  thin  layer 
of  earth.  The  third  is  a  fertile  soil,  but  already  choke-full  of  the  seeds  of  thorns 
and  briers.  There  remains  \\iq  (jood  soil  (Mark  and  Matthew,  /crtA?/').  This  last  laud 
is  neither  hard  as  the  first,  nor  thin  as  the  second,  nor  unclean  as  the  third  ;  it  is  soft, 
deep,  and  free  from  other  seeds.  The  four  prep,  employed  by  Luke  well  describe 
these  different  relations  of  the  seed  with  the  soil  :  ■Kapa,  by  the  side ;  eni,  ttpon  ;  kv 
/liaij,  in  the  midst;  eli.  into  {tni  in  the  T.  Jx.,  ver.  8,  has  only  very  iusufiicient 
authorities). 

The  fate  of  the  seed  is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  soil.  On  the  first  soil  it 
does  not  even  spring  up.  The  (pvtv,  having  sprung  nj)  (vers.  G-S),  is  passed  over  in 
silence  in  the  5th  verse.  Not  having  germinated,  tiie  seed  is  destrnyed  by  external 
causes,  the  passers-by  and  the  birds.  Matthew  and  Mark  mention  only  th'_'  latter. 
On  the  second  soil  the  seed  sjirings  up  ;  but  the  root,  immediately  meeting  with  the 
rock,  cannot  develop  itself  in  proportion  to  the  stem,  and,  as  soon  as  tlie  Sun  has 
dried  up  the  thin  layer  of  earth,  the  plant  perishes.  The  seed  on  tlie  third  soil  grows 
into  ear  ;  but  briers  choke  it  before  tlie  grain  is  foimed.  Thus  in  the  first  case  tiiere 
are  two  external  causes  of  destruction  ;  in  the  second,  an  external  and  an  internal 
cause  ;  in  the  third,  a  single  cause,  and  this  altogether  internal.  On  the  fourth  soil 
the  plant  successful!}^  accomplishes  the  entire  cycle  of  vegetation.  Luke  only  men- 
tions the  highest  degree  of  fertility,  a  hundred-fold.  Matthew  and  ]Maik  speak  of 
lesser  degrees  ;  !Matk  in  an  ascending,  and  Matthew  in  a  descending  order.  How 
puerile  and  unworthy  of  earnest  men  these  trifiing  variations  would  be,  if  the  evan- 
gelists worked  upon  a  common  document  ! 

The  Lord  invites  the  serious  attention  of  the  multitude  to  this  result  ;  kpuvei,  Jle 
raises  Ilis  voice  {lie  cried,  A.V.],  these  are  the  words  which  He  emphasizes.     He 


'^:Ui  COMMEXTAKY    UN    ST.   LUKE. 

endeavors  to  awaken  that  inward  sense  for  divine  things,  witliout  which  religious 
teaching  is  only  an  empty  sound.  The  design  of  Jesus  is,  first  of  all,  to  show  that 
llu  is  not  deceived  by  the  sight  of  this  crowd,  which  is  apparently  so  attentive  ;  then 
to  put  His  disciples  on  their  guard  against  the  expectations  which  such  a  large  con- 
course might  create  in  their  minds  :  lastly,  and  more  than  all.  to  warn  His  hearers  of 
the  perils  which  ihreatened  the  holy  impressions  they  were  then  experiencing. 

2d.  Vers.  9  and  10.*  TJie  Parables  in  general. — "  And  His  disciples  asked  Him, 
saying,  What  might  this  parable  be  ?  10.  And  He  said.  Unto  you  it  is  given  to 
know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God  :  but  to  others  in  parables  ;  that  seeing 
Ihey  might  not  see,  and  hearing  they  might  not  understand."  The  question  of  the 
disciples  referred  solely  to  the  meaning  of  the  preceding  parable  ;  but  Jesus  takes 
advantage  of  it  to  give  them  a  general  explanation  of  this  mode  of  teaching.  It  is 
the  same  in  Mark,  who  only  adds  this  detail  :  w?ieii  they  were  alone  with  Him.  In  Mat- 
tliew  the  question  of  the  disciples  is  altogether  general  :  "  Wherefore  speakest  Thou 
unto  them  in  parables?"  This  form  of  the  question  appears  to  us  less  natural.  The 
reply  of  Jesus  is  more  extended  in  Matthew.  He  quotes  in  extenso  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  (chap.  6)  to  which  Luke's  text  alludes,  and  which  Mark  incorporates  into  the 
discourse  of  Jesus.  Bleek  professes  to  find  in  the  because  of  Matthew  (13:  13)  a  less 
harsh  thought  than  the  in  order  that  of  Mark  and  Luke.  He  is  wrong  ;  the  thought 
is  absolutely  the  same.  In  both  cases,  Jesus  distmctiy  declares  that  the  object  of 
His  parables  is  not  to  make  divine  truths  intelligible  to  all,  but  to  veil  them  from 
those  who  are  indifferent  to  them.  And  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that  He  avails  Him- 
self of  this  mode  of  teaching  just  from  this  time.  By  such  preaching  as  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  He  had  accomiilished  the  first  work  of  His  spiritual  fishing  ;  He  had 
cast  the  net.  Now  begins  the  second,  the  work  of  selection  ;  and  this  He  accom- 
plishes by  means  of  teaching  in  parables.  As  we  have  seen,  the  parable  possesses  the 
double  property  of  attracting  some,  while  it  repels  others.  The  veil  which  it  throws 
over  the  truth  becomes  transparent  to  the  attentive  mind,  while  it  remains  impenetra- 
ble to  the  careless.  The  opposition  between  these  two  results  is  expressed  in  Luke 
by  these  words  designedly  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  phrase,  to  you  and  to  others. 
It  is  the  same  in  Matthew,  to  you  and  to  those ;  in  Mark,  more  forcibly  still,  to  you 
and  to  those  tc7io  are  without.  The  perf.  dsJorai  does  not  refer  to  any  antecedent  decree 
(the  aor.  would  have  been  requu-ed),  but  to  the  actual  condition  of  the  disciples, 
which  renders  them  fit  to  receive  the  revelation  of  divine  things.  It  is  the  inward 
drawing  due  to  divine  teaching,  of  which  Jesus  speaks  in  John  0.  The  term  mystery, 
in  Scripture,  denotes  the  plan  of  salvation,  in  so  far  as  it  can  only  be  known  by  man 
through  a  higher  revelation  (fivEto,  to  initiate).  Used  in  the  plural  {the  mysteries),  it 
denotes  the  different  parts  of  this  great  whole.  These  are  the  heavenly  things  of 
which  Jesus  spoke  to  Nicodemus  (John  3  :  13),  and  which  He  contrasted  with  the 
earthly  things  which  He  had  preached  at  the  commencement.  The  verb  understood 
before  h  wapaiiolalz  is  Aa/.elTai.  But  how,  when  God  makes  a  revelation,  can  it  be 
His  will  not  to  be  understood,  as  Isaiah  says  (chap.  G),  and  as  is  repeated  here  by 
Jesus  ?  That  is  not,  as  Riggenbach  says,  either  His  first  will  or  His  last.  It  is  an 
intermediate  decree  ;  it  is  a  chastisement.  When  the  heart  has  failed  to  open  to  the 
first  beams  of  truth,  the  brighter  beams  which  follow,  instead  of  enlightening,  dazzle 

*  Ver.  9.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  R.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  Itpi"Wue_  omit  Xejovrsi  before  tic. 
Vcr.  10.  !S.  R.  some  Mnn.,  aKovauaiv  instead  of  awtuacv. 


CHAP.   VIII.  :  O-lo.  237 

and  blind  it  ;  and  this  resxilt  is  -willed  by  God  ;  it  is  a  judgment.  Since  Pharaoh 
refuses  to  humble  himst'lf  under  the  first  lessons  he  receives,  subsequent  lessons  shall 
hiirdt'u  him  ;  for,  if  he  is  unwilling  to  be  converted  himself,  he  must  at  least  subserve 
the  conversion  of  olhers  by  the  conspicuousness  of  his  punishment.  The  Jewish 
people  themselves  in  the  time  of  Isaiah,  were  just  in  this  position.  God  makes  them 
feel  this  by  calling  them,  not  my  people,  but  thi>t  people.  God  already  sees  that  the 
nation  is  incapalilc  of  fultilliiig  the  part  of  an  apostle  to  the  world  whi(;h  had  departed 
from  Him.  This  part  it  shall  accomplish,  neveitheless  ;  only  it  shall  not  be  by  its 
missionary  action,  but  by  its  ruin.  This  ruin,  therefore,  becomes  necessary  ;  and 
because  this  ruin  is  necessary  (Matthew),  or  iti  order  thai  it  may  take  place  (jMaik  and 
Luke).  Israel  must  be  hardened.  A  similar  state  of  things  recurred  at  the  period  in 
Jesus'  ministry'  which  we  have  now  reached.  Israel  rejected  as  a  nation  the  light 
which  shone  in  Jesus  ;  and  this  light  covered  itself  under  the  veil  of  the  parable.  But 
through  this  veil  it  sent  out  still  more  brilliant  rays  into  the  hearts  of  those  who,  like 
His  disciples,  had  welcomed  with  eagerness  its  first  beams.  The  terms,  nee,  liear, 
refer  to  the  description  in  the  parable  ;  not  seeing,  and  not  undcrdaiiding,  to  its  real 
meaning. 

M.  Vers,  11-15.*  The  Explanation  of  tJie  Parable. — The  expression.  Now  the  par- 
able is  thin  (ver.  11),  signifies  that  the  essence  of  the  picture  is  not  in  its  outward  form, 
but  in  its  idea.  Tiie  point  of  resemblance  between  the  word  and  the  seed  is  the 
living  power  contained  in  a  vehicle  which  conceals  it.  By  the  word  Jesus  doubtless  - 
means  primarily  His  own  teaching,  but  He  also  comprehends  in  it  any  preaching 
that  faithfully  represents  His  own.  Among  the  multitude  Jesus  discerned  four  kinds 
of  expression  :  countenances  expressing  thoughtlessness  and  indilYerence  ;  faces  full 
of  enthusiasm  and  delight  ;  others  with  a  care-worn,  preoccupied  expression  ;  and 
lastly,  expressions  of  serene  joy,  indicating  a  full  acceptance  of  the  truth  that  was 
being  taught.  In  the  explanation  which  follows,  the  word  is  sometimes  identified 
with  the  new  life  which  is  to  spring  from  it,  and  the  latter  with  the  individuals  (hem- ' 
selves,  in  whom  it  is  found.  This  accounts  for  the  strange  expressions  :  those  which 
are  sown  by  the  wayside  (ver,  13  ;  comp.  vers.  13,  14,  15)  ;  these  have  no  root  (ver.  13) ; 
they  are  choked  (ver.  14).  The  first  class  contains  those  who  are  wholly  insensible  to 
religion,  who  are  conscious  of  no  need,  have  no  fear  of  condemnation,  no  desire  of 
salvation,  and  consequently  no  affinity  with  the  gospel  of  Christ.  In  their  case, 
therefore,  the  word  becomes  a  pre}'  to  external  agents  of  destruction.  On!}'-  one 
is  mentioned  in  the  application,  the  devil  (Luke),  Satan  (Mark),  the  evil  one  (^latthew), 
who  employs  various  means  of  diverting  their  minds,  in  order  to  make  them  forget 
what  they  have  heard.  Had  not  Jesus  believed  in  the  existence  of  Satan.  He  would 
never  have  spoken  of  him  as  a  reality  answering  to  the  figure  of  the  parable.  01 
ciKovovTec,  tcho  hear,  must  be  thus  explained  :  "  who  hear,  and  nothing  more."  This 
implies  Matthew's  do  not  understand. 

•  The  second  are  the  superficial  but  excitable  natures,  in  whom  imagination  and 
sensibility  for  the  moment  make  up  for  the  absence  of  moral  feeling.  They  are 
charmed  with  the  novelty  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  opposition  which  it  offers  to  received 
ideas.  In  everj'  awakening,  such  men  form  a  considerable  portion  of  the  new  con- 
verts.    But  in  their  case  the  word  soon  comes  into  conflict  with  an  internal  hin- 

*  Vor.  12.  5*.  B.  L.  U.  Z.  some  Mnn.,  a/covcravres  instead  of  a/cofovrts.     Ver.  13. 
S*  D.  F"-.  X.,  TT]v  itETftav  instead  of  r^5  Trrroas. 


238  COMMEXTAllY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

drance  :  a  heart  of  stone  which  the  humiliatioa  of  repentance  and  the  love  of  lioliness 
have  never  broken.  Thus  it  finds  itself  given  over  to  external  agents  of  destruction, 
such  as  leinptatio?i  (Luke),  tribulation,  and  persecution  (Matthew  and  Mark)  ;  tlie 
enmity  of  the  rulers,  the  rage  of  the  Pharisees,  the  danger  of  tixcommunicalion,  in  a 
word,  the  necessity  of  suffering  in  order  to  remain  faithful.  Those  who  have  merely  j 
sought  for  spiritual  enjoyment  in  the  Gospel  are  therefore  overcome.  In  ver.  13  the 
verb  daiv  must  be  understood,  and  olbrav  must  be  made  tbe  predicate  :  are  those  icho, 
when  .  .  .  The  ol  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  a  development  of  ovtoi,  and  signifies 
who,  as  such. 

The  third  are  persons  with  a  measure  of  earnestness,  but  their  heart  is  divided  ; 
they  seek  salvation  and  acknowledge  the  value  of  tbe  gospel,  but  they  are  bent  also 
upon  their  earthly  welfare,  and  are  not  detelmined  ti)  sacrifice  everything  for  the 
truth.  These  persons  are  often  found  at  the  present  day  among  those  who  are  re- 
garded as  real  Christians.  Their  worldly-mindedness  maintains  its  ground  notwith- 
standing their  serious  interest  in  the  gospel,  and  to  the  end  hinders  their  complete 
conversion.  The  miscarriage  of  the  seed  here  results  from  an  inward  cause,  which 
is  both  one  and  threefold  :  cares  (in  the  case  of  those  who  are  in  poverty),  riches  (in 
those  who  are  making  their  fortune),  and  the  pleasures  of  life  (in  those  who  are 
already  rich).  These  persons,  like  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  have  overcome  the  fear  of 
persecution,  but,  like  them,  they  succumb  to  the  inward  obstacle  of  a  divided  heart. 
ilopevo/ievot,  go  forth,  describes  the  bustle  of  an  active  life,  coming  and  going  in  the 
transaction  of  business  (3  Sam.  3  : 1).  It  is  in  this  verse  especially  that  the  seed  is 
identified  with  the  new  life  in  the  believer.  The  form  differs  completely  in  the 
three  Syn. 

In  the  fourth  their  spiritual  wants  rule  their  life.  Their  conscience  is  not  asleep, 
as  in  the  first  ;  it  is  that,  and  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the  second,  imagination  or  sensibil- 
ity, which  r\iles  the  will  ;  it  prevails  over  the  earthly  interests  which  have  sway  in 
ihe  third.  These  are  the  souls  described  by  Paul  in  Rom.  7.  'Ef  Kopcii a  and  rhv 
/uyov  depend  on  the  two  verbs  uKovaavre;  Karexovaiv  combined,  which  together  denote 
one  and  the  same  act :  to  Jicaj-  and  to  keep,  for  such  persons,  are  the  same  thing.  The 
term  versezerance  refers  to  the  numerous  obstacles  which  the  .seed  has  had  to  over- 
come in  order  to  its  full  development  ;  comp.  the  Kafj'  iiro/iovj/v  epyov  ayabov  (Rom. 
3  :  7).  Jesus  was  certainly  thinking  here  cf  the  disciples,  and  of  the  devoted  women 
who  accompanied  Him.  Luke  makes  no  mention  either  in  the  parable  or  the  ex- 
planation of  the  different  degrees  of  fertility  indicated  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  the 
latter  meation  them  here  also  in  a  contrary  orrier. 

We  do  not  think  that  a  single  verse  of  this  explanation  of  the  parable  is  compati- 
ble with  the  hypothesis  of  the  employment  of  a  common  text  by  the  evangelists,  or 
of  their  having  copied  from  each  other  ;  at  least  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  allowed 
themselves  to  trifle,  in  a  puerile  and  profane  way,  with  the  words  of  the  Lord.  The 
constant  diversity  of  the  three  texts  is.  on  the  other  hand,  very  naturally  explained, 
if  their  original  source  was  the  traditional  teaching. 

Ath.  Vers.  16-18.*  Practical  Conclusion.—"  No  man,  when  he  hath  lighted  a  can- 
dle, covereth  it  with  a  vessel,  or  puttelh  it  iinder  a  bed  ;  but  setteth  it  on  a  candle- 
stick, that  they  which  enter  in  may  see  the  light.     17.  For  nothing  is  secret  that  shall 

*  Ver.  16.  The  Mss.  vary  between  ettl  /.vxviai  and  s-rzi  ttjv  /.vxviav  (a  reading  de- 
rived from  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  from  11:33).  Ver.  17.  ».  B.  L.  Z.,  o  ov  mj 
yvua^Tj  instead  of  o  ov  yvucbyjerai. 


CHAP.   VIII.  :  Ifi-is,  M'.} 

noi  be  marie  manifest  ;  neither  anything  hid  that  shall  not  be  known  and  come 
abroad.  18.  Take  heod  therefore  how  ye  lioar  ;  for  whosoever  halh,  to  him  shall  be 
given  ;  and  whoeoever  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  even  that  which  he  seemeth 
to  have. "  Bleek  can  perceive  no  conueclion  between  these  reflections  and  the  pre- 
ceding; parable.  But  they  are  closely  connected  with  the  similar  reflections  in  vers. 
0  and  10.  There  is  even  a  designed  antithesis  between  the  growth  of  the  light  (ver. 
IG  and  17)  and  the  increase  of  the  daikne^s  (ver.  10).  Jes-us  is  speaking  to  the  dis- 
ciples. The  word  which  is  translated  candle  denotes  simply  a  lamp,  just  n  saucer 
lilled  with  oil  in  which  a  wick  is  placed — the  mode  uf  lighting  mo.st  used  in  the  East. 
It  may  therefore  be  placed  without  any  danger  under  such  a  vessel  as  a  bushel, 
which  serves  at  once  for  measure,  table,  and  dish  among  the  poor,  or  under  the  divau 
(K/.iv7}),  a  bench  furnished  with  cushions  and  raised  from  the  floor  from  one  to  three 
feet,  on  which  it  is  customary  to  rest  while  engaged  in  conversation  or  at  meals, 
Beds  properly  so  called  are  not  used  in  the  East  ;  they  generally  lie  on  the  ground, 
on  wraps  and  carpets.*  The  lighted  lamp  might  denote  the  apostles,  whom  Jesus 
culiglilens  with  a  view  to  make  them  the  teachers  of  the  world.  Covering/  their  light 
would  be  not  putting  them  into  a  position  of  suflEicicnt  influence  in  regaid  to  other 
men  :  and  seiting  it  on  a  atndleatick  would  signify,  conferring  on  them  the  apostolic 
office,  in  virtue  of  which  they  will  become  the  light  of  the  world.  Those  who  see 
the  light  on  entermg  the  house  would  be  their  converts  from  the  .Tews  and  hea- 
then. Ver.  17  would  be  an  allusion,  as  in  12  : 3,  to  that  law  according  to  which 
truth  is  to  be  fully  revealed  to  the  woild  by  the  apostolic  preaching,  l^aslly,  the 
18lh  verse  would  refer  to  that  growth  of  inward  light  which  is  the  recompense  of  the 
preacher  for  the  faithfulness  of  his  labors.  But  it  is  just  this  last  verse  which  upsets 
the  whole  of  this  interpretation.  For,  1.  With  this  meaning,  Jesus  ought  to  have 
said,  not  :  2'ake  heed  how  ye  Jiear,  but,  hoio  ye  preach.  3.  To  haw,  in  the  sense  of 
the  18th  verse,  is  not  certainly  to  produce  fruits  in  others,  but  to  possess  the  truth 
one's  self.  We  must  therefore  regard  the  term  Ivx^'o^,  the  lump,  as  denoting 
the  truth  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  which  Jesus  unveils  to  the  aptistles 
in  His  parables.  If  He  clothes  the  truth  in  sensible  images,  it  is  not  to  render 
it  unintelligible  {to  put  it  under  a  bushel)  ;  on  the  contrary,  in  explaining 
it  to  them,  as  He  has  just  done.  He  places  it  on  the  candlestick  ;  and  they 
are  the  persons  who  arc  illuminated  on  entering  into  the  house.  All  will  gradu- 
ally become  clear  to  them.  While  the  night  thickens  over  Israel  on  account  of 
its  unbelief,  the  di.sciples  will  advance  into  even  fuller  light,  until  there  is  nothing 
left  in  the  plan  of  God  {His  mysteries,  ver.  11)  which  is  obscure  or  hidden  (ver  17). 
The  heart  of  Jesus  is  lifted  up  at  this  prospect.  This  accounts  for  the  poetical 
rhythm  which  always  appears  at  such  moments.  Here  we  see  why  it  behoves  the 
disciples  to  hear  with  the  greatest  care  ;  it  is  in  order  that  they  may  really  hold  what 
He  gives  them,  like  the  good  soil  which  receives  and  fertilizes  the  seed  (ver.  18).  He 
alone  who  assimilates  His  teaching  by  an  act  of  living  comprehension,  who  really 
hath  (the  opposite  of  seeing  without  seeing,  ver.  10),  can  receive  continually  more. 
Acquisitions  are  made  onlj'  by  means  of,  and  in  proportion  to,  what  is  already  pos- 
se.ssed.  Tlie  Spirit  Himself  only  makes  clear  what  has  been  kept  (John  14  :  2G).  If, 
therefore,  any  one  among  them  contents  Himself  with  hearing  truth  without  ap- 
propriating it,  by  and  by  he  will  obtain  nothing,  and  at  last  even  lose  everything. 

*  Felix  Boret,  "  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,"  pp.  348  and  349. 


240  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Mark  (4  :  21-25)  says  :  Hiat  which  he  hath  ;  Luke  :  that  which  he  thinkeih  lie  hath.  It 
comes  to  the  same  thing  ;  fur,  as  to  what  is  heard  witliout  compreliending  it,  it  is 
equally  true  to  say  tliat  he  hath  (iu  a  purely  external  sense),  or  that  lie  thinks  he  hath 
(in  the  real  sense  of  the  word  have).  Comp.  Luke  19  :  26.  This  very  apophthegm  is 
found  several  times  iu  Matthew.  It  expresses  one  of  the  profoundest  laws  of  the 
inural  world.  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  thought  the}^  found  in  the  word  fJo/ceZ,  thinks  he 
liath,  a  censure  of  Luke  on  the  haughty  pretensions  of  the  Twelve  !  Our  evangelists 
could  never  have  anticipated  that  they  would  ever  have  such  perverse  interpitlers. 
Nothing  cou'd  more  effectually  allay  any  undue  elation  which  the  sight  of  these 
multitudes  might  excite  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  than  their  being  reminded  in 
this  way  of  their  responsibility.  The  similar  reflections  iu  Mark  (4  :  25)  are  too  differ- 
ent in  form  to  have  been  drawn  from  the  same  source. 

Mark  goes  on  to  narrate  the  parable  of  the  ear  of  corn,  which  he  alone  records. 
In  Matthew  there  are  six  parables  respecting  the  kingdom  of  God  given  along  with 
that  of  the  sower.  They  form  an  admirai)le  whole.  After  the  foundation  of  the 
kingdom  described  in  the  parable  of  the  sower,  there  follows  the  mode  of  its  develop- 
incnt  in  that  of  the  tares  ;  then  its  power,  presented  under  two  aspects  (extension  and 
transformation) — in  those  of  the  grain  of  mustard  seed  and  the  leaven  ;  next,  its  in- 
comparable value  iu  the  parables  of  the  treasure  and  the  pearl  ;  lastly,  its  consum- 
mation iu  that  of  the  net.  Is  this  systematic  plan  to  be  attributed  to  Jesns  ?  I  think 
not.  He  was  too  good  a  teacher  to  relate  in  this  way  seven  parables  all  in  a  breath.* 
On  the  other  hand,  did  He  only  utter  on  this  occasion  the  parable  of  the  sower  ?  Cer- 
tainly not,  for  Matthew  says  respecting  this  very  time  (13  :  3) :  "  And  He  spake 
many  things  unto  them  in  parables,"  and  Mark  (4:2):  "He  taught  them  many 
things  in  parables."  Probal)ly,  therefore,  Jesus  spoke  on  this  day,  besides  the  par- 
al)le  of  the  sower,  that  of  the  tares  (Mattiiew),  and  that  of  the  ear  of  corn  (Mark),  the 
images  of  which  are  all  taken  from  the  same  sphere,  and  which  immediately  follow 
the  first,  the  one  in  one  Gospel,  the  other  in  the  other.  As  to  the  other  parables, 
Matthew  has  united  them  with  the  preceding,  in  accordance  with  his  constant  method 
of  grouping  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  around  a  given  subject.  Such  different  arrange- 
ments do  uot  appear  compatible  with  the  use  of  the  same  written  document. 

8.  Visit  of  the  Mother  and  Brethren  of  Jesus :  8  :  19-21 .  —We  should  have  been  igno- 
rant of  the  real  object  of  this  visit,  unless,  in  this  as  m  several  other  cases,  Maik'd 
narrative  had  come  in  to  supplement  that  of  the  other  two.  According  to  Mark,  a 
report  had  reached  the  brethren  of  Jesus  that  He  was  in  a  state  of  excitement  border- 
ing on  madness  ;  it  was  just  the  echo  of  this  accusation  of  the  Pharisees  :  "  He 
casteth  out  devils  by  Beelzebub."  Comp.  Mark  3  :21,  22.  His  brethren  therefore 
came,  intending  to  lay  hold  on.  Him  {KparF/nai,  avrov,  ver.  21),  and  take  Him  home. 
Matthew  also  connects  this  visit  (12  :  46)  with  the  same  accusation.  In  John,  the 
brethren  of  Jesus  are  represented  in  a  similar  attitude  in  regard  to  Him  (7  ;  5)  :  "  His 
brethren  also  did  not  believe  on  Him."  As  to  Mary,  it  is  not  said  that  she  shared  the 
sentiments  of  her  sons.  But  when  she  saw  them  set  out  under  the  influence  of  such 
feelings,  she  would  naturally  desire  to  be  present  at  the  painful  scene  which  she  an- 
ticipated would  take  place.  Perhaps  also,  like  John  the  Baptist,  she  was  unable  to 
explain  to  herself  the  course  which  her  Sou's  work  was  taking,  and  was  distracted 
between  contrary  impressions. 

*  I  abide  by  this  statement,  notwithstanding  the  contrary  assertion  of  Gess. 


CHAP.  VIII.  :  19-25.  241 

Vers.  10-21.*  The  word  vitliout  (vcr.  20)  might  be  understood  to  mean  :  "  out- 
side tlie  circle  wliieli  suriounded  Jesus."  Hut  Muik  expressly  nienlious  a  house  iii 
■vvliiih  he  was  receiviug  hospilalily  (vcr.  20),  aud  where  a  large  crowd  icat<  .seated 
aiDiiitd  Him  (vers.  32  aud  VA)  :  Aie  these  brethren  of  Jesus  younger  sons  of  Joseph 
anil  Mary,  or  sons  of  Joseph  uy  a  previous  marriage  ;  or  arc  they  cousins  of  Jesus, 
sons  of  Cleopas  (the  brolher  of  Jo.sepli),  who  would  be  called  his  bretl)ren,  as  having 
been  brought  up  iu  the  bouse  of  their  uncle  Joseph?  We  cannot  discuss  this  ques- 
tion here.  (See  our  "  Comnienlary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,"  ii.  12).  One  thing  is 
ceitain,  that  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  word  brother,  placed,  as  it  is  here,  by 
the  side  ot  the  word  mother,  is  the  most  natural.  The  answer  of  Jesus  signifies,  not 
that  family  ties  are  in  Ilis  eyes  of  no  value  (comp.  John  19  :  26),  but  that  they  are 
subordinate  to  a  tie  of  a  higher  and  more  durable  nature.  In  those  women  who 
accompanied  Illm,  exercising  over  Ilim  a  mother's  care  (vers.  2  aud  3),  and  in  those 
discii)les  who  so  faithfully  associated  themselves  with  llim  iu  IIis  woik.  He  had 
found  a  family  which  supplied  the  place  of  that  which  had  deliberately  fors  dieu 
Him.  Aud  tins  new  spiiitual  relationship,  eternal  even  as  tlie  God  in  whom  it  was 
based,  was  it  not  superior  in  dignity  to  a  lelationship  of  blood,  which  the  least  acci- 
dent might  break  ?  In  this  saying  He  expresses  a  tender  and  gralef id  affection  for 
those  faithful  souls  whose  love  every  day  supplied  the  place  of  the  dearest  domestic 
affection.  He  makes  no  mention  of  father  :  this  place  belongs  in  His  e3'es  to  God 
alone.  We  see  how  the  description  of  the  actual  circumstances,  given  by  Mark, 
enables  us  to  understand  the  appropriateness  of  this  saying.  Tliis  fact  proves  that 
Luke  knew  neither  the  narrative  of  this  cs'angelist,  nor  that  of  the  alleged  proto- 
]\Iark.  How  could  he  in  sheer  wilfulness  have  neglected  the  light  which  such  a  nar- 
rative threw  \ipon  the  whole  scene  ? 

9.  27ie  SliUiiij  of  the  Storm:  8  :  22-25. — We  come  now  to  a  series  of  narratives 
which  are  fouud  united  together  in  the  three  Syn.  (Matt.  8  -AS  et  seq.  ;  Mark  4  :  35 
et  seq.) :  the  storm,  the  demoniac,  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  together  with  the  woman 
afflicted  with  an  issue  of  blood.  Fiom  the  connection  of  these  incidents  in  our  three 
Gospels,  it  has  frequently  been  inferred  that  their  authors  made  use  of  a  common 
written  source.  But,  1.  How,  in  this  case,  has  it  come  to  pass  that  this  cycle  fills 
quite  a  different  place  in  Matthew  (immediately  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount)  from 
that  which  it  occupies  iu  the  other  two  ?  And  2.  How  came  Matthew  to  intercalate, 
between  the  return  of  Jesus  and  the  account  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  two  incidents 
of  the  greatest  importance — the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (9  : 1  et  seq.),  and  the  call  of 
Matthew — with  the  feast  and  the  discourse  which  follow  it  (ver.  9  et  seq.),  incidents 
which  in  Mark  and  Luke  occupy  quite  a  different  place  ?  The  use  of  a  written  source 
does  not  accord  with  such  independent  arrangement.  It  is  a  very  simple  explanation 
to  maintain  that,  in  the  traditional  teaching,  it  was  customary  to  relate  these  three 
facts  together,  probably  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were  chronologically 
connected,  and  that  to  this  natural  cycle  there  were  sometimes  added,  as  in 
Matthew,  other  incidents  which  did  not  belong  historically  to  this  precise  time.  That 
which  renders  this  portion  particularly  remarkable  is,  that  in  it  we  behold  the  mirac- 
ulous power  of  Jesus  at  its  full  height  :  power  over  the  forces  of  nature  (the  storm)  ; 
over  the  powers  of  darkness  (the  demoniacs) ;  lastly,  over  death  (the  daughter  of 
Jairus). 

*  Ver.  20.  S*  B.  D.  L.  A.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  omit  ItyovTuv.  Ver.  21.  The 
Alex,  omit  al/To^. 


2-i2  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Vers.  23-25.*  Miracles  of  lliis  kind,  -wliile  manifesting  the  original  power  of  man 
over  nature,  aie  at  the  same  lime  llie  prelude  of  the  regeneiation  of  tlie  visible  world 
which  is  to  crown  the  moral  renovation  of  humanity  (Rom.  8).  From  Matthew's 
narrative  it  might  be  inferred  that  this  voj'age  took  place  on  the  evening  of  the  same 
day  on  which  the  Seimou  on  the  Mount  was  spoken.  But,  on  the  other  liand,  too 
many  things  took  place,  according  to  Mr.tthew  himself,  for  the  limits  of  a  single  day. 
Tilaik  places  this  embarkation  on  the  evening  of  the  day  on  which  Jesus  spoke  the 
jiarable  of  the  sower  ;  this  note  of  the  time  is  much  more  piobable.  Luke's  indica- 
tion of  the  time  is  more  general :  on  one  of  these  days,  but  it  does  not  invalidate  Maik's. 
The  object  of  this  excursion  was  to  preach  the  gospel  in  the  country  silualed  on  the 
other  side  of  the  sea,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  drawn  out  in  8:1.  According  to 
jSlaik,  the  disciples'  vessel  was  accompanied  by  other  boats.  When  they  started,  the 
weather  wus  calm,  and  Jesus,  yielding  to  fatigue,  fell  asleep.  The  pencil  of  Maik 
lias  preserved  this  never-to-be-forgotten  picture  :  the  Lord  reclining  on  the  hinder 
p:irt  of  the  ship,  with  His  head  upon  a  pillow  that  had  been  placed  there  by  seme 
fiiendly  hand.  It  often  happens  on  lakes  surrounded  by  mounliuns,  that  sudden  and 
violent  storms  of  wind  descend  from  the  neighboring  heights,  especially  toward  even- 
ing, after  a  warm  day.  This  well-known  phenomenon  is  described  by  the  woid 
/cffrt'^T/,  came  down.\  In  the  expression  aweirAripovvTo,  they  were  filled,  there  is  a  con- 
fusion of  the  vessel  witii  those  whom  it  carries.  The  term  iTTcaTara  is  peculiar  to 
Luke  ;  Mark  says  6L6aaKa7,E,  Matthew  iivpie.  Ilow  ridiculous  these  variations  would 
be  if  all  three  made  use  of  the  same  document  !  The  24tii  veise  descriljes  one  of  the 
sublimest  scenes  the  earth  has  ever  beheld  :  uian,  calmly  confident  in  God,  by  the 
perfect  union  of  his  will  with  that  of  the  Almighty-,  controlling  the  wild  fury  of  the 
blind  forces  of  nature.  The  term  i^ireTi/nr/Ge,  rebuked,  is  an  allusion  to  the  hostile 
character  of  this  power  in  its  present  manifestation.  Jesus  speaks  not  only  to  the 
wind,  but  to  the  water  ;  for  the  agitation  of  the  waves  (kAvScju)  continues  after  the 
liuriicane  is  appeased. 

In  Mark  and  Luke,  Jesus  first  of  all  delivers  His  disciples  from  danger,  then  lie 
speaks  to  their  heart.  In  Matthew,  he  first  upbraids  them,  and  then  stills  the  storm. 
This  latter  course  appears  less  in  accordance  with  the  wisdom  of  the  Lord.  But  why 
did  the  apostles  deserve  blame  for  their  want  of  faith  ?  Ought  they  to  have  allowed 
the  tempest  to  follow  its  course,  in  the  assurance  that  with  Jesus  with  them  the}'  ran 
no  danger,  or  that  in  any  case  He  would  awake  in  lime  V  Or  did  Jesus  expect  that 
one  of  them,  by  an  act  of  prayer  and  commanding  failh,  would  still  the  tempest? 
It  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  what  He  blames  in  them  is  the  state  of  tiouble 
and  agitation  in  which  He  finds  them  on  awaking.  When  faith  possesses  the  heart, 
its  prayer  may  be  passionate  and  urgent,  but  it  will  not  be  full  of  trouble.  There  is 
nothing  surprising,  whatever  any  one  may  say,  in  the  exclamation  attributed  to  those 
who  witnessed  this  scene  (ver.  25)  :  first,  because  there  were  other  persons  there  be- 
skles  the  apostles  (Mark  4  :  30)  ;   next,  because  such  incidents,  even  when  similar 

*  Yer.  24.  !*"  X.  T.  several  Mnn.  Sy^"'''^  Itp'erWie,  omit  etnaTara  emaTnTa.  D. 
reads  iivine  Kvpie.  i>.  E.  F.  G.  H.  some  Mnn.  It»''i.,  tTravaaro  instead  of  enavanvTo. 
K.  A.  n.  several  Mnn.  add  /jeya'A-ri  to  yaAr]vri  (taken  from  the  parallel  passiige.s). 

f  On  these  hurricanes,  to  which  the  Lake  of  Genuesareth  is  parficuhirly  exposed, 
comp.  W.  Thompson,  "  The  Land  and  the  Book,"  Loudon,  1808,  [>.  375  (cited  by  M. 
Furrer)  :  "  Storms  of  wind  rush  wildly  through  the  deep  moimtain  gorces  which 
descend  from  the  north  and  north-east,  and  are  not  only  violent,  but  sudden  ;  they 
often  take  place  when  the  weather  is  perfectly  clear." 


CHAP.  VIII.  :  2i}-2'X  243 

occurrt'uccs  have  been  sucn  before,  always  iippeiir  now  ;  lastly,  because  this  was  the 
fi.sl  time  thai  the  apostles  saw  their  JMaster  coateud  wllh  ihc  blintl  forces  of  uatiire. 

Strauss  niaiiilaius  liiat  this  is  a  pure  myth.  Keiin,  iu  oppositiou  tj  him.  alleges 
the  evident  antiquity  of  the  nairaiive  (llic  sublime  majesty  of  tlie  picture  of  Jesus, 
the  absence  of  all  ostentation  from  His  words  and  actions,  and  the  simple  expression 
of  wonder  on  the  i)att  of  the  spectators).  The  narrative,  therefore,  nuist  have  some 
foundation  in  fact,  in  some  natural  incident  of  water-travel,  which  has  been  ideali/.ed 
in  ace  irdance  with  such  Avords  as  Ps.  101  ■.2'3,  ei  seq.,  and  the  appeal  to  Jonah 
(1  :4-G) :  "  Awake,  O  sleeper."  There,  says  criticism,  3-ou  see  how  this  history  was 
made      We  should  rather  say,  how  the  trick  was  done. 

10.  Tlie  Healing  of  the  Demoniac:  6 :  26-39.— Tiiis  portion  brings  before  us  a 
slorm  no  less  ditHcult  to  still,  and  a  yel  more  striking  victory.  Luke  and  Mark  men- 
(ijn  only  one  demoniac;  Matthew  speaks  of  two.  The  hypothesis  of  a  common 
written  source  heie  encounters  a  difficulty  wliich  is  very  hard  for  •it  to  surmount. 
But  criticism  has  expedients  to  meet  all  cnses  :  according  to  Ilollzmanu,  IMatlhew, 
who  had  omitted  the  healing  of  the  demoniac  at  Capernaum,  here  repairs  this  omis- 
si-m."  by  grouping  the  possessed  wlio  h  id  been  neglected  along  with  this  new  case" 
(p.  2.")).  This  is  a  sample  of  what  is  calL-d  at  the  present  day  critical  sagacity.  As 
if  the  evangelists  had  no  faith  themselves  in  what  they  Vv-rote  with  a  view  to  win  the 
failh  of  otiiers  !  Why  should  it  be  deemed  impossible  f-ir  the  tv.'o  maniacs  to  have 
lived  logellier,  and  for  the  healing  of  only  one  of  the  two  to  have  presented  the  striking 
features  mentioned  iu  the  following  narrative?  Howeverit  was,  we  have  here  a  proof 
of  the  independence  of  Matthew's  narratives  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  those  of  Mark 
and  Lnke  on  the  other. 

Vers.  26-29.*  Tlie  Encounter.— Tlwrc  are  three  readings  of  the  name  of  the  inhabi- 
tants, and  unf;;rtunately  they  are  also  found  in  both  the  other  Syn.  Epiphanius 
mentions  the  following  forms  :  Tt/jyeT??!^!;)!^  in  Mark  and  Luke  (but  in  it  is  probal)le 
t'lal,  in  the  case  of  Luke,  we  should  read  reprt(T7?i^(jy  in  this  Fatiiet)  ;  Tn^apnvuv  hi 
Matthew  (Fe/a} euacwv  in  some  manuscripts).  It  wauld  seem  to  follow  from  a  passage 
in  Origen  ("  Ad.  Job."  t.  vi.  c.  24)  that  the  most  widely-diffused  reading  in  his  time 
was  Tei)a'jTiv(j',  that  Tnikii)riv<:)v  was  only  read  in  a  small  number  of  manuscripts, 
and  that  TeitytarivCiv  was  only  a  conjecture  of  his  own.  He  states  that  Oerum  is  a  city 
of  Arabia,  and  that  there  is  neither  sea  nor  lake  near  it  ;  that  Oadara,  a  city  of 
Judtea,  well  known  for  its  warm  baths,  has  neither  a  deep-lying  piece  of  Avaler  with 
steep  banks  iu  its  neighborhood,  nor  is  there  any  sea  ;  Avhile,  near  the  lake  of  Tiberias 
the  remains  ate  to  be  seen  of  a  city  called  Oergem,  near  wliich  there  is  a  precipice 
overlooking  the  sea,  and  at  which  the  place  is  still  shown  where  the  herd  of  swine 
cast  themselves  down.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  these  readings  after  the  mo.-t 
capiicious  fashion.  The  great  majority  of  the  Mun.  in  Matthew  read  VqjnoT]vC)v  ;  in 
JMark  and  Luke  TepyeGTjvuv.  The  Latin  djcumcnis  are  abmst  ail  in  favor  of 
Te()-/EaTii'uv.     Tischendorf  (8lh    edition)  reads  Ta^apTjvuv  in  Matthew,   TepaoTji'uii  iu 

*  Ver.  26.  T.  R.,  with  A.  R.  T.  A.  A.  and  10  other  Mjj.  many  Mnn.  Syr.,  reads 
Tn<'inpTii>(ji>.  B.  D.  It.  Vg.,  Tepnavi'ui'.  !*.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Cop.  Epi|)ii., 
TepyenFvuv.  Ver.  27.  i*.  B."E.  Z.  sonn;  Mnn.  omit  nvru.  ik.  B.,  e^Y^y  instead  of  fixer. 
fii  IJ.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.,  ««t  xf'^^^'^  ikuvuv  instead  of  ek  xpovuv  uavui'  Kai.  Ver.  2S.  ii. 
B.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  Ii.  omit  ««<  before  avaKpn^aq.  Ver.  29.  B.  F.  M.  A.  Z., 
Tra.irjyyFile  instead  of  -apijyyeVev,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  16  Mjj.  several 
Mnn.  Syr.,  elr.  Ver.  29.  The  mss.  vary  between  e^eaixeiru  and  ei^ea/jevero.  The 
M.SS.  vary  between  tov  ^niuoio',  and  tov  ihujwvtov. 


244  COMMFJNTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Mark,  Tepysnrivuv  in  Luke.  Bleek  thinks  that  the  primitive  Gospel  on  Tvhich,  in  his 
opinion,  our  three  S3^n.  are  based,  read  TefMa-rivuv,  but  that,  owing  to  the  improbability 
of  this  readin.i!;,  it  was  changed  by  certain  copyists  into  TarSaprjvuv ,  and  byOrigen  into 
VepyEaTjvuv.  Looking  simply  at  the  fact,  tliis  hist  name  appears  to  him  to  agree  with 
it  best.  In  fact,  Gerasa  was  a  large  city  situated  at  a  considerable  distance  to  the 
south-east,  on  tlie  borders  of  Arabia  ;  and  the  reading  Tepaarjvcjv  can  only  be  admitted 
by  supposing  that  the  district  dependent  on  this  city  extended  as  far  as  1o  tlie  sea  of 
Galilee,  which  is  inadmissible,  altliough  Stephen  of  Byzantium  calls  Gerasa  a  city 
uf  Decapolis.  Qadara  is  nearer,  being  only  a  few  leagues  from  the  smth-east  end  of 
the  sea  of  Galilee.  Josephus  calls  it  the  metropolis  of  the  Perjea  ;  Pliny  reckons  it 
among  the  cities  of  Decapolis.  Its  suburbs  might  extend  as  far  as  the  sea.  But  it  is 
highly  natural  to  suppose,  that  these  cities,  being  so  well  known,  the  copyists  sub- 
stituted their  names  for  that  of  Gergcsa,  which  was  generally  unknown.  It  is  a 
confirmation  of  this  view,  that  the  existence  of  a  town  of  this  name  is  attested  not 
only  by  Origeu,  Eusebins,  and  Jerome,  but  by  the  recent  discovery  of  ruins  bearing 
the  name  of  Gersa  or  Kliersa,  toward  the  embouchure  of  the  Wady  Semakh.  The 
course  of  the  walls  is  still  visible,  according  to  Thompson  (p.  375).  This  traveller 
also  says,  that  "  the  sea  is  so  near  the  foot  of  the  mountain  at  this  spot,  that  animals 
having  once  got  fairly  on  to  the  incline  could  not  help  rolling  down  ioto  the  water" 
(p.  877).  Wilson  {Athenreum,  1866,  i.  p.  438)  states  that  this  place  answers  all  the 
conditions  of  the  Bible  narrative.*  The  true  reading,  therefore,  would  be  TEpyEaTjvCiv 
or  Tspyeaaiuu.  This  name  so  little  known  must  have  been  altered  first  into  Tepaojjvuv, 
"which  has  some  resemblance  to  it,  and  then  into  Va6apTjvi:)v.\ 

On  the  demoniacs,  see  4  :  33.  The  27th  verse  aives  a  description  of  the  demoniac, 
wliich  is  afterward  finished  in  the  29th.  This  first  description  (ver.  27)  only  contains 
that  which  presented  itself  immediaUly  io  the  (ibservalion  of  an  eye-witness  of  the 
scene.  The  second  and  fuller  description  (ver.  2v»)  is  accounted  for  by  tlie  command 
of  .Jesus,  which,  to  be  intelligible,  required  a  more  detailed  statement  of  the  state  of 
the  possessed.  This  interruption,  which  is  not  found  in  Mark,  reflects  very  natu- 
rally the  impression  of  an  eye-witness  ;  it  demonstrates  the  independence  of  the 
respective  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  plural  dai^bvia  {demons),  explained 
afterward  (ver.  30)  by  the  at!licted  man  himself,  refers  doubtless  to  the  serious  nature 
and  multiplicity  of  the  symptoms — melancholy,  mania,  violence,  occasioned  b}'^  a 
number  of  relapses  (see  on  8:3  and  11:24-26).  liis  refusing  to  wear  clothes  or 
remain  in  a  house  is  connected  with  that  alienation  from  .society  wliich  characteiizes 
such  states.  The  Alex,  reading  :  "  who  for  a  long  while  past  had  worn  no  clothes," 
is  evidently  an  error.  The  note  of  time  cannot  refer  to  a  circumstance  altogether  so 
[subordinate  as  that  of  clothing.  Tlie  Levitical  uncleanness  of  the  tombs  insured  to 
this  man  the  solitude  he  sought.  The  sight  of  Jesus  appears  to  have  produced  an 
extraordinary  impression  upon  him.  The  holy,  calm,  gentle  majesty,  tender  compas- 
sion, and  conscious  sovereignty  which  were  expressed  ia  the  aspect  of  our  Lord, 

*  We  cite  these  tw^o  authors  from  M.  Konrad  Furrer  :  "  Die  Bedeutung  der  bibl. 
Geographie,"  p.  19. 

f  M.  Eleer  has  lecently  proposed  ("  Der  Kirchenfreimd,"  13th  May,  1870),  a  view 
which  would  more  easily  account  for  the  reading  Gerana  found  in  the  mss.  by 
Origeu  •  The  original  name  of  the  place  Gergesa,  abbreviated  into  Gersa,  might  be 
altered  in  popular  speech  into  Gerasa,  which  it  would  be  necessary  not  to  confound 
with  the  name  of  the  Arabian  city. 


CHAP.  VIII.  :  30-33.  245 

awakened  in  him,  by  force  of  contrast,  the  humbling  consciousness  of  his  own  state 
of  moral  disorder.  He  felt  himself  at  once  attracted  and  repelled  by  this  man  ;  tliis 
led  to  a  violent  crisis  in  him,  which  revealed  itself  first  of  all  in  a  cry.  Tiien,  like 
some  ferocious  beast  submitting  to  the  power  of  his  subduer,  he  runs  and  kneels, 
protesting  all  the  while,  in  tiie  name  of  the  spirit  of  wliich  he  is  still  the  organ, 
against  the  power  which  is  exerted  over  Jiim.  Luke  says  :  npoaKinreLv,  not  ■Kimouvvelv 
(Mark).  The  former  term  docs  not  imply  any  religious  feeling.  On  the  expression  : 
Wlint  have  1  to  do  with  thee?  see  cm  4  :  24.  The  name  Jems  is  wanting  in  Mntthew, 
and  it  looks  strange.  IIow  did  he  know  this  name?  Perhaps  he  had  iieard  Jesus 
talked  of,  and  instinctively  recognized  Ilim.  Or  perhaps  tliere  was  a  tupernatural 
knowledge  appertaining  to  this  extraordinary  state.  The  expression  :  Son  of  the  most 
high  God  is  explained  by  the  prevalence  of  polytheism  in  those  countries  where  there 
was  a  large  heathen  population.  Josephus  calls  Gadara  a  Greek  city.  We  umst  nut 
infer  from  this  that  this  man  was  a  heathen. 

In  his  petition,  ver.  28,  the  demoniac  still  identifies  himself  with  llie  alien  spirit 
which  holds  him  in  his  power.  The  torment  which  he  dreads  is  being  sent  away  into 
the  abyM  (ver.  31)  ;  Matthew  adds,  before  the  time.  The  power  of  acting  on  the  world, 
for  beings  that  are  alienated  from  God  and  move  only  within  the  void  of  their  own 
subjectivity,  is  a  temporary  solace  to  their  unrest.  To  be  deprived  of  this  power  is 
for  them  just  what  a  return  to  prison  is  for  the  captive.  If  we  read  napi/yyeiXe,  we 
must  give  ihis  aor.  the  meaning  of  a  plus  perfect :  For  He  had  commanded.  But  MS. 
authority  is  rather  in  favor  of  the  imperf.  nnpijyeXXev  :  "  For  He  was  commanding 
him.'*  This  tense  indicates  a  continuous  action  wliich  does  not  immediately  pro- 
duce its  effect.  The  demon's  cry  of  distress.  Torment  me  not,  is  called  forth  by  the 
strong  and  continued  pressure  which  the  command  of  Jesus  put  upon  him.  This 
imperf.  corresponds  with  Mark's  Eltye  yup.  "VYe  find  in  these  two  analogous  forms 
the  common  type  of  the  traditional  narration.  T\wfor,  which  follows,  ex[)lains  this 
imperfect.  The  evil  did  not  yield  instantly,  because  it  had  taken  too  deep  root. 
"ZvvTipTtdKEi,  it  kept  him  in  its  possession.  liol'Aoli  ;i-p6i^o«5  may  signify /(??•  a  long  tirne 
past  or  oftentimes.  With  the  second  sense,  there  would  be  an  allusion  to  a  scries  of 
relapses,  each  of  which  had  aggravated  the  evil. 

Vers.  30-3li.*  The  Cure. — To  this  prayer,  in  which  the  victim  became  involuntarily 
the  advocate  of  his  tormentor,  Jesus  replies  by  putting  a  question  :  He  asks  the  afflicted 
man  his  name.  For  what  purpose?  There  is  nothing  so  suitable  as  a  calm  and 
simple  question  to  bring  a  madman  to  himself.  Above  all,  there  is  no  mor^  natural 
wa3'  of  awakening  in  a  man  who  is  beside  himself  the  consciousness  of  his  own  per- 
sonalitj",  than  to  make  him  till  his  own  name.  A  man's  name  becomes  the  expres- 
sion ofhis  character,  and  a  summary  of  the  history  of  his  life.  Now.  the  first  con- 
dition of  any  cure  of  this  afllicted  man  was  a  return  to  the  distinct  feeling  of  his  own 
personality.  There  was  at  this  time  a  word  which,  more  than  any  other,  called  up 
the  idea  of  the  resistless  might  of  the  conqueror  under  whom  Israel  was  then  suffer- 
ing oppression.  This  was  the  w-ord  Legion.  The  sound  of  this  word  called  up  the 
Ihought  of  those  victorious  armies  before  which  the  whole  world  bowed  down.  So 
it  is  by  this  term  that  this  afflicted  man  describes  the  power  which  oppresses  him, 

*  Ver.  ,S0.  Sc.  E.  Syr"^''.  It.  omit;\f}wi).  Ver.  31.  The  Mss.  vary  between  napfKn'/ow 
and  TTnpcKa/.ei.  Ver.  32.  The  mss.  vary  between  (SofTKOfievTi  and  ^oaKOjievuv.  J*<^  B.  C. 
Ic  Z.  some  Mnn.  Itpiei-Wue,  irap'^KaAeaav  instead  of  napeKa?.ovv. 


246  COMilEXTAIlY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

aud  with  which  he  still  confounds  himself.  The  expression,  many  demons,  is  ex- 
plained by  the  multipiicity  aud  diversity  of  the  symptoms  (ver.  29).  To  this  answer 
the  demoniac  adds,  in  the  name  of  his  tyrant,  a  fresh  lequest.  The  demon  under- 
stands that  he  must  release  his  prey  ;  but  he  does  not  want  to  enter  fortiiwith  into  a 
condition  in  which  contact  with  terrestrial  realities  would  be  no  longer  possible  to 
him.  In  Mark  there  is  here  found  the  sliange  expression:  "not  to  send  them  out 
of  the  country,"  which  may  mean,  to  the  desert,  where  unclean  but  not  captive  spirits 
were  thought  to  dwell,  or  into  tlte  abyss,  whence  they  went  fortii  to  find  a  temporary 
abode  upon  the  earth.  The  sequel  shows  that  the  second  meaning  must  be  preferred. 
Jesus  makes  no  answer  to  this  request.  His  silence  is  ordinarily  regarded  as  signify- 
ing consent.  But  the  silence  of  Jesus  simply  means  that  He  insists  on  the  command 
which  He  has  just  given.  When  He  wishes  to  reply  in  the  affirmative— as,  for  in- 
stance, at  the  end  of  ver.  32 — he  does  so  distinctly.  This  explanation  is  confirmed 
by  Matthew,  "  If  thou  cast  us  out  .  .  ."  Their  request  to  enter  into  the  swine 
only  refers,  therefore,  to  the  way  by  which  they  were  suffered  to  go  into  the  abyss. 
"What  is  the  explanation  of  this  request,  aud  of  the  permission  which  Jesus  accorded 
to  it  ?  As  to  these  evil  spirits,  we  can  understand  that  it  miglit  be  pleasant  to  them, 
before  losing  all  power  of  action,  to  find  one  more  opportunity  of  doing  an  injurjr. 
Jesus,  on  his  part,  has  in  view  a  twofold  result.  The  Jewish  exorcists,  in  order  to 
assure  their  patients  that  they  were  cured,  were  accustomed  to  set  a  pitcher  of  water 
or  some  other  object  in  the  apartment  where  the  expulsion  took  place,  which  the 
demon  took  care  to  upset  in  going  out.  What  they  were  accustomed  to  do  as  charla- 
tans, Jesus  sees  it  good  to  do  as  a  physician.  The  identification  of  the  sick  man  with 
his  demon  had  been  a  long-existiug  fact  of  consciousness  (vers.  27  and  29).  A  de- 
cisive sign  of  the  reality  cf  the  departure  of  the  evil  power  was  needed  to  give  the 
possessed  perfect  assurance  of  his  deliverance.  Besides  this  reason,  there  was  prob- 
ably another.  The  theocratic  feeling  of  Jesus  had  been  wounded  by  the  sight  of 
these  immense  herds  of  animals  which  the  law  declared  rmclean.  Such  an  occupa- 
tion as  this  showed  how  cumpletely  the  line  of  demarcati;m  between  Judaism  and 
pag.inism  was  obliterated  in  this  country.  Jesus  desired,  by  a  sensible  judgment,  to 
reclaim  the  people,  and  prevent  their  being  still  more  unjudaized. 

The  influence  exerted  by  the  demons  on  the  herd  was  iu  no  sense  a  possession. 
None  but  a  moral  being  can  be  morally  possessed.  But  we  know  that  several  species 
of  animals  are  accessible  to  collective  infiueuces — that  swine,  in  particular,  readily 
yield  to  panics  of  terror.  The  idea  that  it  was  the  demoniac  himself  who  frightened 
Ihern,  by  throwing  himself  into  the  herd,  is  incompatible  with  the  text.  Mark, 
whose  narrative  is  always  distinguished  by  the  exactness  of  its  details,  says  that  the 
number  of  the  swine  was  about  two  thousand.  An  item  of  his  own  invention,  says 
De  Wette  ;  an  appendix  of  later  tradition,  according  to  Bleek  ;  here  we  see  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  critical  system,  according  to  which  Mark  is  supi)osed  to 
have  made  use  of  the  text  of  the  other  two,  or  of  a  document  common  to  them  all. 
The  number  2000  cannot  serve  to  prove  the  individual  possession  of  the  swine  by 
the  demons  {legivn,  ver.  30),  for  a  legion  comprised  4000  men.  The  question  has  been 
asked,  Had  Jesus  the  right  to  dispose  in  this  way  of  other  people's  property?  One 
might  as  well  ask  whether  Peter  had  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  lives  of  Ananias  and 
Sap  phi  ra  !  It  is  one  of  those  cases  in  which  the  power,  by  its  very  nature,  guaran- 
tees the  right. 


CHAP.   VIII.  :  34-39.  247 

Vers.  34-39.*  The  Effect  pi-oducfd. — First,  on  the  people  of  the  country  ;  next,  on 
the  afflicted  man.  Tlie  owners  of  the  herd  dwelt  iu  the  city  and  neighborhood. 
Thej'  came  to  convince  themselves  with  their  own  eyes  of  the  loss  of  which  they 
had  been  informed  hy  the  herdsmen.  On  reaching  the  spot  they  beheld  a  sight 
which  impressed  them  deeply.  The  demoniac  was  known  all  through  the  countr3', 
and  was  an  object  of  universal  terror.  They  found  him  calm  and  restored.  So  great 
a  miracle  could  not  fail  to  reveal  to  them  the  power  of  God,  and  awaken  their  con- 
science. Their  fears  were  confirmed  by  the  account  giveu  them  of  the  scene  which 
had  just  occurred  by  persons  who  were  with  Jesus,  and  had  witnessed  it  {ol  Idovrec, 
vcr.  36).  These  persons  were  not  the  herdsmen  ;  for  the  cure  was  wrought  at  a  con- 
siderable distjvnce  from  the  place  where  the  herd  was  feeding  (Matt.  8  :  30).  They 
were  the  apostles  and  the  people  who  had  passed  over  the  sea  with  them  (Mark  4  :  30). 
The  Kai,  also,  is  undoubtedly  authentic  ;  the  latter  account  was  supplementary  to 
that  of  the  herdsmen,  which  referred  principally  to  the  loss  of  the  herd.  The  fear 
of  the  Inhabitants  was  doubtless  of  a  superstitious  nature.  But  Jesus  did  not  wish 
to  force  Himself  upon  them,  for  it  was  still  the  season  of  grace,  and  grace  limits  it- 
self to  making  its  offers.  He  yielded  to  the  request  of  the  inhabitants,  who,  regard- 
ing Him  as  a  judge,  dreaded  further  and  still  more  terrible  chastisement  at  His  hand. 
He  consents,  therefore,  to  depart  from  them,  but  not  without  leaving  them  a  wit- 
ness of  His  grace  in  the  person  of  him  who  had  become  a  living  monument  of  it.  The 
restored  man,  who  feels  his  moral  existence  linked  as  it  w^ere  to  the  person  of  Jesus, 
begs  to  be  permitted  to  accompany  Him.  Jesus  was  already  in  the  ship,  Mark  tefls 
us.  He  does  not  consent  to  this  entreaty.  In  Galilee,  where  it  was  necessary  to 
guard  against  increasing  the  popular  excitement.  He  forbade  those  He  healed  publish- 
ing abroad  their  cure.  But  in  this  remote  country,  so  rarely  visited  by  Him,  and 
which  He  was  obliged  to  leave  so  abruptly.  He  needed  a  missionary  to  testify  to  the 
greatness  of  the  Messianic  work  which  God  was  at  this  time  accomplishing  for  His 
people.  There  is  a  fine  contrast  between  the  expression  of  Jesus  :  "  What  God  hath 
done  for  thee,"  and  that  of  the  man  :  "  What  Jesus  had  done  for  him."  Jesus  re- 
fers all  to  God  ;  but  the  afflicted  man  could  not  forget  the  instrument.  The  whole 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  narrative  is  omitted  in  Matthew.  Mark  indicates  the  field  of 
labor  of  this  new  apostle  as  comprising  not  his  own  city  merely,  but  the  whole  of  the 
Decapolis. 

Volkmar  applies  here  his  system  of  allegorical  interpretation.  This  incident  is 
nothing,  according  to  him,  but  the  symbolical  representation  of  the  work  of  Paul 
among  the  Gentiles.  The  demoniac  represents  the  heathen  world  ;  the  chains  with 
which  they  tried  to  bind  him  are  legislative  enactments,  such  as  those  of  Lycurgus 
and  Solon  ;  the  swine,  the  obscenities  of  idolatry  ;  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to  yield  tolhe 
desire  of  the  restored  demoniac,  when  he  wished  to  accompany  Him,  the  obstacles 
which  Jewish  Christians  put  in  the  way  of  the  entrance  of  the  converted  heathen 
into  the  Church  ;  the  request  that  .Jesus  would  withdrav^,  the  irritation  caused  in 
heathen  countries  by  the  success  of  Paul  (the  riot  at  Ephesus,  ex.  gr.).  Keim  is  op- 
posed to  this  unlimited  allegijrizing,  which  borders,  indeed,  on  al)surdity.  He  vcrv 
properly  objects,  that  the  demoniac  is  not  even  (as  is  the  case  with  the"Canaanitish 

*  Ver.  34.  The  mss.  vary  between  yeyovo';  and  yeyevrmevov.  kizElOovTEZ,  in  the 
T.  R.,  is  only  read  in  a  few  Mnn.  Ver.  35.  ii*  B.,  e^7)?.dev  instead  of  e^s?.7}AvOii. 
Ver.  36.  i*.  B.  C.  D.  L.  P.  X.  some  Mnn.  and  Vss.  omit  /cat  before  oi  t<)ovTEi.  Ver. 
37.  The  MSS.  vary  between  ijpuTtjaav  (Byz.)  and  TjpurrinEv  (Alex.).  ^*  L.  P.  X., 
repyenrivuv.  B.  C.  D.  It.  Vg. ,  Vepaarivuv  instead  of  Ta6apr]vuv,  which  is  the  reading 
of  T.  K.  with  U  31  jj.  many  Mnn.  Syr. 


243  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

■woman)  spoken  of  as  a  hcatlien  ;  that  tlie  precise  locality,  so  little  known,  to  which 
the  incident  is  referred,  is  a  proof  of  ils  historical  reality  ;  that  the  request  to  Jesus  (o 
leave  the  country  is  a  fact  without  any  corresponding  example,  whicli  does  not  look 
lilie  imitation,  but  has  the  very  featuies  of  truth.  In  short,  he  only  objects  to  tlie 
episode  of  the  swine,  which  appears  to  him  lo  !)e  a  legeuilary  amplification.  But  is 
it  likely  that  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  would  have  ailmitted  into  their  teaching  an 
iucideut  so  remarkable,  if  it  could  be  contradicted  by  the  population  of  a  wholeVlis- 
irict,  which  is  distinctly  pointed  out?  If  p:)ssessiun  is  only,  as  Keim  thuiks,  an 
ordinary  malady,  this  conclusion  is  certainly  inevitable.  But  if  there  is  any  degree 
of  reality  attaching  to  the  mysterious  notion  of  possession,  it  would  be  ditiieull  to 
determine  a  priori  what  might  not  result  from  such  a  state.  The  picture  forms  a 
whole,  in  which  each  incident  implies  all  the  rest.  The  request  made  to  Jesus  to 
leave  the  country,  in  which  Keim  acknowledges  a  proof  of  authenticity,  is  only  ex- 
plained by  the  loss  of  the  swine.  Keim  admits  too  much  or  too  little.  Either  Volk- 
mar  and  his  absurdities,  or  the  frank  acceptance  of  the  narrative — this  is  the  only 
alternative  (comp.  Heer's  fine  work,  already  referred  to,  "  Kircheufreuud,"  Nos.  10 
and  11,  18TU). 

11.  The  Eaisinq  of  Jairus'  Davgliier  ;  8  :  40-56.— In  Mark  and  Luke,  the  follow- 
ing incident  follows  immediately  on  the  return  from  the  Decapolis.  According  to 
Luke,  the  multitude  which  He  had  left  behind  Him  when  He  went  away  had  not  dis- 
persed ;  they  were  expecting  Him,  and  received  Him  on  His  landing.  According  to 
Mark,  it  collected  together  again  as  soon  as  His  arrival  was  known.  In  Matthew, 
two  facts  are  interposed  between  His  arrival  and  the  resurrection  of  Jairus'  daughter 
—  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  of  Capernaum,  and  the  calling  of  the  Apostle  Matthew. 
As  the  publican's  house  was  probably  situated  near  the  port,  the  second  of  these 
facts  might  certainly  have  happened  immediately  on  His  landing  ;  but,  in  any  case, 
the  feast  given  by  the  publican  could  not  have  taken  place  until  the  evening,  and 
after  what  occurred  in  the  house  of  Jairus.  But  the  same  supposition  will  not  apply 
to  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  which  must  be  assigned  to  quite  another  time,  as  is 
the  case  with  Mark  and  Luke. 

Vers.  40-42.*  The  Request. — The  term  anoSsxeoOai  indicates  a  warm  welcome. 
Mark  and  Luke  mention  the  age  of  the  young  girl,  which  Matthew  omits.  The  cir- 
cumstance of  her  being  an  only  daughter,  added  by  Luke,  more  fully  explains  the 
father's  distress.  Criticism,  of  course,  does  not  fail  to  draw  its  own  conclusions 
from  the  same  circumstance  being  found  already  in  7  :  12.  As  if  an  only  son  and  an 
only  daughter  could  not  both  be  found  in  Israel  !  According  to  Mai  k  and  Luke,  the 
young  girl  was  dying  ;  in  Matthew  she  is  already  dead.  This  evangelist  tells  the 
story  here,  as  elsewhere,  in  a  summary  manner  ;  he  combines  in  a  single  message  the 
arrival  of  the  father,  and  the  subsequent  arrival  of  the  messenger  announcing  her 
death.  The  process  is  precisely  similar  to  that  already  noticed  in  the  account  of  the 
healing  of  the  centurion's  servant.  Matthew  is  interested  simply  in  the  fact  of  the 
miracle  and  the  word  of  Jesus. 

Vers.  43-48.f  The  Interruption. — The  preposition  Trp6?,  in  irpoaavaluxjaaa,  expresses 
the  fact  that,  in  addition  to  these  long  sufferings,  she  now  found  herself  destitute  of 

*  Ver.  40.  i*'"'.  B.  L.  R.  some  Mnn.  Syr.,  ev  (^e  ru  instead  of  E-yevero  6e  sv  tu. 
Ver.  42.   C.  D.  P  ,  wopgveaflac  instead  of  vnaysiv.     C.  L.  U.,  gweOTllBov  for  avvenvLyov. 

f  Ver.  43.  All  the  Mjj.,  larpntc  instead  of  etS  larpuvi,  which  is  the  reading  of  T. 
R.  with  some  Mnn.  Ver.  45.  The  mss.  vary  between  oi  aw  avTu  (Alex.)  and  oc  fiera 
avTov  (T.  R.  Bj'z.).  ii.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit  the  words  Kai  leyei  .  .  .  fiov. 
Ver.  40.  it.  B.  L.,  eie7.i]lvfjvLav  instead  of  eielfjovaav.  Ver.  47.  9  Mjj.  Syr.  It.  Vg. 
omit  avTu  after  a-ijy/EU.sf.     Ver.  48.  !*.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  and  Vss.  omit  fjapaet. 


CHAP.    VIII.  :  4U-.jG.  249 

resources.  Mark  expresses  with  u  little  more  force  the  injury  ■which  the  physicians 
hutl  done  her.  Hilzij,^  and  lloltzniauu  niaiutuiu  that  Luke,  iieing  a  physician  him- 
self, intentionally  tones  down  these  details  from  the  proto-Mark.  We  liud  nothing 
here  but  Mark's  characteristic  amplification.  The  malady  fiom  which  this  wonuiu 
suffered  rendered  her  Levitically  unclean  ;  it  was  even,  according  to  the  law,  a  suffi- 
cient justificatiou  for  a  divorce  (Lev.  15  :  25  ;  Deut.  24  :  1).  Hence,  no  doubt,  her 
desire  to  get  cured  as  it  were  by  stealth,  without  being  obliged  to  make  a  public 
avowal  of  her  disorder.  The  faith  which  actuated  her  was  nut  altogether  free  from 
superstition,  for  she  conceived  of  the  miraculous  power  of  Jesus  as  acting  in  a  purely 
physical  manner.  The  word  Kpuaneduv,  which  we  translate  by  t/te  hcvi,  (of  llie  gar- 
ment), denotes  one  of  the  four  tassels  or  tufts  of  scarlet  woollen  cord  attached  to  the 
four  corners  of  the  outer  robe,  which  were  intended  to  remind  the  Israelites  of  their 
law.  Their  name  was  zitzit  (Num.  15  :  38).  As  this  robe,  which  was  of  a  rectangular 
form,  was  worn  like  a  woman's  shawl,  two  of  the  corners  being  allowed  to  hang 
down  close  together  on  the  back,  we  see  the  force  of  the  expression  came  behind. 
Had  it  been,  as  is  ordinarily  understood,  the  lower  hem  of  the  garment  which  she  at- 
tempted to  touch,  she  could  not  have  succeeded,  on  account  of  the  crowd  which  sur- 
rountled  Jesus.  This  word  KpuaKeSov,  according  to  Passow,  comes  from  Kt'pac  and 
iredov,  the  forward  part  of  a  plain  ;  or  belter,  according  to  Schleusner,  from  KEiipa^ivov 
eJ5  zeihv,  that  w/u'c/i  hangs  down  toward  the  cjroiind.  Both  Mark  and  Luke  date  the  cure 
from  the  moment  that  she  touched.  ^latthew  speaks  of  it  as  taking  place  a  little  later, 
and  as  the  effect  of  .Jesus'  word.  But  this  difference  belongs,  as  we  shall  see,  to  Mat- 
thew's omission  of  the  following  details,  and  not  to  an}'  difference  of  view  as  to  the 
efficient  cause  of  the  cure. 

The  difficulty  about  this  miracle  is,  that  it  seems  to  have  been  wrought  outside 
the  consciousness  and  will  of  Jesus,  and  thus  appears  to  be  of  a  magical  character. 
In  each  of  Jesus'  mirucles  there  are,  as  it  were,  two  poles  :  the  receptivity  of  the 
person  who  is  the  subject  of  it,  and  the  activity  of  Him  by  whom  it  is  wrought.  The 
maximum  of  action  in  one  of  these  factors  may  correspond  with  the  minimum  of 
action  in  the  other.  In  the  case  of  the  impotent  man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  in 
whom  it  was  necessary  to  excite  even  the  desire  to  be  cured,  as  well  as  in  the  raising 
of  the  dead,  the  human  receptivity  was  reduced  to  its  minimum.  The  activity  of  the 
Lord  in  these  cases  reached  its  highest  degree  of  initiation  and  intensity.  In  tlie 
present  instance  it  is  the  reverse.  The  receptivity  of  the  woman  reaches  such  a  de- 
gree of  energy  that  it  snatches,  as  it  were,  the  cure  from  Jesus.  The  action  of  .Jesus 
is  here  confined  to  that  willingness  to  bless  and  save  which  always  animated  Him  in 
His  relations  with  men.  He  did  not,  however,  remain  unconscious  of  the  virtue 
which  He  had  just  put  forth  ;  but  He  perceives  that  there  is  a  tincture  of  sui)erstition 
in  the  faith  which  had  acted  in  this  way  toward  Him  ;  and,  as  Riggenbach  admirably 
shows  ("Leiden  Jesu,"  p.  443),  His  design  in  what  follows  is  to  purify  this  incipient 
-faith.  But  in  order  to  do  this  it  is  necessaiy  to  discover  the  author  of  the  deed. 
There  is  no  reason  for  not  attrilnding  to  Jesus  the  ignorance  implied  in  the  question, 
"  Who  touched  me  ?"  Anything  like  feigning  ignorance  ill  comports  with  the  can- 
dor of  His  character.  Peter  shows  His  usual  forwardness,  and  ventures  to  remon- 
strate with  Jesus.  But,  so  far  from  this  detail  implying  any  ill-will  toward  this 
apostle,  Luke  attributes  the  same  fault  to  the  other  apostles,  and  equally  without  any 
sinister  design,  since  Mark  does  the  same  thing  (ver.  31).  Jesus  does  not  stop  to  le- 
buke  His  disci [iles  ;  He  pursues  His  inquiry  ;  only  He  now  substitutes  the  assertion, 


250  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

Somebody  Tiath  touched  me,  for  the  question,  Who  touched  me?  Further,  He  no  longer 
laj's  stress  upon  tlie  person,  but  upon  (he  act,  in  reply  to  the  observation  of  Peter, 
which  tended  to  deny  it.  The  verb  urpaaOai,  to  feel  about,  denotes  a  voluntary,  de- 
liberate touch,  and  not  merely  an  accidental  contact.  Mark  adds  that,  while  putting 
this  (juestion,  He  cast  around  Him  a  scrutinizing  glance.  The  reading  i^elnAvitvlav 
(Alex.)  signifies  properly  :  "  I  feel  myself  in  the  condition  of  a  man  from  whom  a 
force  has  been  withdrawn."  This  is  somewhat  artificial.  The  received  reading, 
ikE/^%vaav,  merely  denotes  the  outgoing  of  a  miraculous  power,  which  is  more  simple! 
Jesus  had  been  inwardly  apprised  of  the  influence  which  He  had  -just  exerted. 

The  joy  of  success  gives  the  woman  courage  to  acknowledge  both  her  act  and 
her  malady  ;  but  the  words,  befoi-e  all  the  jjeople,  are  designed  to  show  how  much  this 
avowal  cost  her.  Luke  says  trembling,  to  which  Mark  adds  fearing  ;  she  feels  afraid 
of  having  sinned  against  the  Lord  by  acting  without  His  knowledge.  He  reassures 
her  (ver.  48),  and  confirms  her  in  the  possession  of  the  blessing  which  she  had  in 
some  measure  taken  by  stealth.  This  last  incident  is  also  brought  out  by  Mark  (ver. 
34).  The  intention  of  Jesus,  in  the  inquiry  He  had  just  instituted,  appears  more  es- 
pecially in  the  words,  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee  ;  thy  faith,  and  not,  as  thou  wast 
thinking,  the  material  touch.  Jesus  thus  assigns  to  the  moral  sphere  (m  Luke  and 
Maik  as  well  as  in  Matthew)  the  virtue  which  she  referred  solely  to  the  phj'sical 
sphere.  The  word  ^idpan,  take  courage,  which  is  wanting  in  several  Alex.,  is  prob- 
ably taken  from  Matthew.  The  term  saved  implies  more  than  the  healing  of  the 
body.  Her  recovered  health  is  a  link  which  henceforth  will  attach  her  to  Jesus  as 
the  personification  of  salvation  ;  and  this  link  is  to  her  the  beginning  of  salvation  in 
the  full  sense  of  the  term.  The  words  in  Matthew,  "  And  the  woman  was  healed 
from  that  same  hour,"  refer  to  the  time  occupied  by  the  incident,  taken  altogether. 

Eusebius  says  (H.  E.  vii.  18,  ed.  Loemmer)  that  this  woman  was  a  heathen  and 
dwelt  at  Paneas,  near  the  source  of  the  Jordan,  and  that  in  his  time  her  house  was 
still  shown,  having  at  its  entrance  two  brass  statues  on  a  stone  pedestal.  One  repre- 
sented a  woman  on  her  knees,  with  her  hands  held  out  before  her,  in  the  attitude  of 
a  suppliant  ;  the  other,  a  man  standing  with  his  cloak  thrown  over  his  shoulder,  and 
his  hand  extended  toward  the  woman.  Eusebius  had  been  into  the  house  himself, 
and  had  seen  this  statue,  which  represented,  it  was  said,  the  features  of  Jesus. 

Vers.  49-56.*  The  Prayer  granted. — We  may  imngine  how  painful  this  delay  had 
been  for  the  father  of  the  child.  The  message,  which  just  at  this  moment  is  brought 
to  him,  reduces  him  to  despair.  Matthew,  in  his  very  summary  account,  omits  all 
these  features  of  the  story  ;  and  interpreters,  like  De  Wette,  who  maintain  that  this 
Gospel  was  the  source  of  the  other  two,  are  obliged  to  regard  the  details  in  Mark  and 
Luke  as  just  so  many  embellishments  of  their  own  invention  !  The  present  niareve, 
in  the  received  reading,  signifies  :  "  Only  persevere,  without  fainting,  in  the  faith 
which  thou  hast  shown  thus  far."  Some  Alex,  read  the  aor.  TriaTevaov  :  "Only 
exercise  faith  1    Make  a  new  effort  in  view  of  the  unexpected  difficulty  which  has 

*  Ver.  49.  ii.  B.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  omit  avru.  !*.  B.  D.,  /iriKeri  instead  oi  fir}. 
Ver.  50.  6  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  omh^eyuv  after  avru.  B.  L.  Z.,  viuTevaov  in- 
stead of  niGTEve.  Ver.  51.  T.  R.,  with  D.  V.  some  Mnn.,  eiaeWuv  instead  of  eIQuv. 
The  MS9.  vary  between  nva  and  ovSeva.  The  mss.  vary  between  luawrji^  kui  Innufiov 
and  laKu(iov  KOL  luavvrtv  (taken  from  Mark).  Ver.  52.  8  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It.,  ov 
yap  instead  of  ovk  before  anehavev.  Ver.  54.  i*.  B.  D.  L.  X.  sf)me  IVlnn.  and  Vss. 
omit  EKjialuv  e^u  navrai  aai,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  all  the  rest  (taken 
from  Matthew). 


CHAP.    Vlll.  :  49-50.  251 

arisen."  This  second  meaning  seems  to  agree  better witli  the  position  of  /iSvov,  only, 
before  the  verb.  Perliaps  the  other  reading  is  taiieu  from  Mark,  where  all  the  anlhor- 
ities  read  nioTeve. 

The  reading  of  the  T.  R.,  eiae?id6v,  hating  entered,  ver.  51,  is  not  nciiily  so  -well 
supported  as  the  reading  e'AQwv,  luiving  come.  But  with  either  reading  there  is  a  dis- 
tinction observed  between  the  arrival  {f-7/}uv)  or  entrance  {e'iael(j6v)  into  the  house  and 
the  entrance  into  the  chamber  of  the  sick  girl,  to  which  the  eiae'/Jjdv  which  follows 
refers  :  "  lie  sufferi'd  no  man  to  go  in."  What  obliges  us  to  give  this  sense  to  this 
infinitive,  is  the  mention  of  the  mother  among  the  persons  excepted  from  the  pro- 
hibition ;  for  if  here  also  entrance  into  the  house  was  in  question,  this  would  suppose 
that  the  mother  had  left  it,  which  is  scarcely  probable,  when  her  daughter  had  only 
just  expired.  Jesus'  object  in  only  admitting  just  the  indispensable  witnesses  into 
Ihe  room,  was  to  diminish  as  far  as  possible  the  fame  of  the  work  He  was  about  to 
perform.  As  to  the  three  apostles,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  present,  in 
order  that  they  might  be  able  afterward  to  testify  to  what  was  done. 

The  following  scene,  vers.  53,  53,  took  place  at  the  entrance  of  the  sick  chamber. 
The  TravTci,  all,  are  the  servants,  neighbors,  relations,  and  professional  mourners 
{avATj-al,  Matthew)  assembled  in  the  vestibule,  who  also  wanted  to  make  their  way 
into  the  chamber.  Olshausen,  x^eandcr,  and  others  infer  from  Jesus'  words,  that  the 
child  was  simply  in  a  lethargy  ;  but  this  explanation  is  incompatible  with  the  expres- 
sion elSorec,  knowing  iccll,  ver.  53.  If  this  liad  been  the  idea  of  the  writer,  he  would 
have  employed  the  word  SoKovvrsg,  believing  that  .  .  .  On  the  rest  of  the  verse, 
see  7  :  14.  By  the  words,  "  She  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth,"  Jesus  means  that,  in  the 
order  of  things  over  which  He  presides,  death  is  death  no  longer,  but  assumes  the 
character  of  a  temporary  slumber  (.John  11  :  11,  explained  by  ver.  14).  Baur  main- 
tains that  Luke  means,  ver.  53,  that  the  aposll^s  also  joined  in  the  laugh  against 
Jesus,  and  that  it  is  with  this  in  view  that  the  evangelist  has  chosen  the  general  term 
all  (ver.  53  ;  Evaug.  p.  458).  In  this  case  it  would  be  necessary  to  include  among 
the  Troiref  the  father  and  mother!!  The  words,  having  ind  them  all  out,'Ya.W\(i 
T.  R.,  are  a  gloss  derived  from  Mark  and  Matthew.  It  has  arisen  in  this 
way  :  Mark  expressly  mentions  two  separate  dismissals,  oue  of  the  crowd  and 
nine  apostles  at  the  entrance  of  the  house,  and  another  of  the  people  be- 
longing to  the  house  not  admitted  into  the  chamber  of  the  dead  (ver.  40)  As 
ia  Luke,  the  word  enter  (ver.  51)  had  been  wrongly  referred  to  the  first  of  these 
acts,  it  was  tliought  necessary  to  mention  here  the  second,  at  first  in  the  margin,  and 
afterward  in  the  text,  in  accordance  with  the  parallel  passages.  The  command  to 
give  the  child  something  to  eat  (ver.  55)  is  related  by  Luke  alone.  It  shows  the  per- 
fect calmness  of  the  Lord  when  performing  the  most  wonderful  work.  He  acts  like 
a  ph>sician  who  has  just  felt  the  pulse  of  his  patient,  and  gives  instructions  respect- 
ing his  diet  for  the  day.  Mark,  who  is  fond  of  local  coloiing,  has  preserved  the 
Aramaean  form  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  also  the  graphic  detail,  immediately  the  child 
began  to  walk  about.  In  these  features  of  the  narrative  we  recognize  the  account  of 
an  eye-witness,  in  whose  ear  the  vo)ce  of  Jesus  still  sounds,  and  who  still  sees  the 
child  that  had  been  brought  to  life  again  moving  about.  Matthew  omits  all  details. 
The  fact  itself  simply  is  all  that  has  any  bearing  on  the  Messianic  demonstration, 
which  is  his  object.  Thus  each  follows  his  own  path  while  presenting  the  common 
substratum  of  fact  as  tradition  had  preserved  it.  On  the  prohibition  of  Jesus,  ver. 
56,  see  on  5  :  14  and  8  :  39. 


40'4  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LIKE. 

According  to  Yolkmar,  the  -woman  with  an  issue  would  be  only  the  personificH- 
tion  ot  the  believing  Jews,  in  wliom  Iheir  rabbis  (the  physicians  of  ver.  4b)  had  been 
unable  to  elfect  a  moral  cure,  but  whum  Jesus  will  save  after  having  healud  the 
lieallieu  (the  return  from  Gadaia)  ;  and  the  daughter  of  Jairus  represents  the  dead 
Judiasm  of  the  synagogue,  which  the  gospel  alone  can  restore  to  life.  Keim  acknowl- 
edges the  insufficiency  of  symbolism  to  explain  such  narratives.  He  admits  the  cure 
of  tlie  woman  as  a  fact,  but  mamtains  that  she  herself,  by  her  failli,  was  the  sole 
contributor  toward  it.  In  the  resurrection  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  he  sees  cither  a 
myth,  modelled  after  the  type  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Shunammite  widow's  son  by 
Elisha(a  return  to  iStrauss),  or  a  natural  awaking  from  a  lethargy  (a  return  to 
Paidus).  But  is  not  the  local  coloring  quite  as  decided  in  this  narrative  as  in  that  of 
the  possessed  of  Gadara,  of  which  Keim  on  this  ground  maintains  the  historical 
truth  ?  And  as  to  an  awakening  from  a  lethargy,  what  lias  he  to  reply  to  Zeller  ? 
(See  p.  318,  note.) 

FOURTH  CYCLE. — 9  :  1-50. 

From  the  Mission  of  tlie  Twelve  to  the  Departure  from  Oalilee. 

This  cycle  describes  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  It  embraces  six  narra- 
tions :  1st.  The  mission  of  the  Twelve,  and  the  impression  made  on  Herod  by  the 
public  activity  of  Jesus  (9  ;  1-9).  2d.  The  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (vers.  10-17). 
3(?.  The  first  communication  made  by  Jesus  to  His  apostles  respecting  His  approach- 
ing sufferings  (vers.  18-27).  Ath.  The  transfiguration  (vers.  28-30).  bth.  The  cure 
of  the  lunatic  <;hild  (vers.  37-43a).  Qth.  Some  circumstances  which  preceded  the 
departure  from  Galilee  (vers.  4^6b  to  50). 

1.  Tlie  Mission  of  the  Twelve,  and  tlie  Fears  of  Herod:  9  :l-9. — T]>e  mission  with 
"whicli  the  Twelve  were  intrusted  marks  a  twofold  advance  in  the  work  of  Jesu--. 
From  the  first  Jesus  had  attached  to  Himself  u  great  number  of  pious  Jews  as  disciples 
(a  first  example  occurs,  vers.  1-11  ;  a  second,  ver.  27)  ;  from  these  H'?  had  chosen 
twelve  to  form  a  permanent  college  of  apostles  (Q  .12  et  seq.).  And  i>'^w  this  last 
title  is  to  become  a  more  complete  reality  than  it  had  hitherto  been.  Jesus  sends 
them  forth  to  the  people  of  Galilee,  and  puts  them  through  their  first  apnrenticcship 
in  their  future  mission,  as  it  were,  under  His  own  eyes.  With  this  advance  in  their 
position  corresponds  another  belonging  to  the  work  itself.  For  six  mo;)ths  .Jesus 
dj/oted  Himself  almost  exclusively  to  Galilee.  The  shores  of  the  lake  of  G"unesaret, 
the  western  plateau  Decapolis  itself  on  the  eastern  side,  had  all  been  visiter^  by  Him 
in  turn.  Before  this  season  of  grace  for  Galilee  comes  to  an  end,  He  desires  to  ad- 
dress one  last  solemn  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  this  people  on  whom  sucb  length- 
ened evangelistic  labors  have  been  spent  ;  and  He  does  it  by  this  mission,  w^ich  He 
confides  to  the  Twelve,  and  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  close  of  His  own  ministry. 
Marls  also  connects  this  portion  with  the  preceding"  cycle  by  introducing  betwe'?n  the 
two  the  visit  to  Nazareth  (6  : 1-6),  which,  as  a  last  appeal  of  the  Saviour  to  this  jjlace, 
so  dear  to  his  heart,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  position  of  affairs  at  this  time. 

Matthew,  chap.  10,  also  mentions  this  mission  of  the  Twelve,  connecting  V'th  it 
the  catalDgue  of  apostles  and  a  long  discourse  on  the  apostolate,  but  he  appea''s  to 
place  thisfact  earlier  than  Luke.  Keim  (ii.  p.  308)  thinks  that  Luke  as.-igns  it  a 
place  in  nearer  connection  with  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples,  in  order  thai  this 
second  incident  (a  pure  invention  of  Luke's)  may  be  more  certain  to  eclipse  the 
former.  In  imputing  to  Luke  this  Machiavellian  design  against  tlie  Twelve,  Keim 
f  irgets  two  tilings  ;  1.  That,  according  to  him,  Luke  invented  the  scene  of  the  tlec- 
tiun  of  the  Twelve  (6)  with  the  view  of  conferring  on  tlitir  ministry  a  double  and 


riiAi'.    IX.  :  i-.')(».  253 

triple  cnnsecratlon.  After  linving  had  recourse  to  invention  to  exalt  them,  we  are  to 
t.u|)|)()s(;  tlial  lie  iu)\v  invents  lo  (It'giade  tiit-m  !  3.  Thiit  the  tiiree  Syn.  arc  agreed  in 
l)laeing  tins  mission  of  tlio  Twelve  just  al'ter  the  preceding  cycle  (the  tempest, 
Gadarii,  Jaiius).  and  thai  as  Matthew  places  this  cycle,  us  well  as  the  Sermon  on  Hie 
Mount,  which  it  closely  follows,  earlier  than  Luke,  the  dilTerent  position  which  the 
mission  of  the  Twelve  occupies  ni  the  one  from  that  which  it  holds  in  the  other, 
results  very  naturally  from  tliis  fact.  It  is  lo  be  observed  that  Mark,  whose  account 
of  the  sending  fortiiof  the  Twelve  fully  confirms  that  of  Luke,  is  quite  independent 
of  it,  as  is  proved  by  a  nuiviber  of  details  whicli  are  peculiar  to  him  j^G  :  7,  two  and 
two;  ver.  S,  save  one  staff  only  ;  ihid.,  put  on  two  coats;  ver.  lo,  they  anointed  with  oil). 

1st.  Vers.  1,  2.*  The  Mission. — There  is  something  greater  than  preacliing — this 
is  to  make  preachers  ;  there  is  something  greater  than  performing  miracles— this  is 
to  impart  the  power  to  perform  them.  It  is  this  new  stage  which  the  work  of  Jesus 
here  reaches.  He  labors  to  raise  His  apostles  up  to  His  own  level.  The  expression 
avyKa'/iGufitvo':,  having  called  together,  indicates  a  sulemn  meeting;  it  expresses  more 
than  the  term  -pocKd/.eiaOni,  to  call  to  Hun,  used  in  Mark  and  Matthew.  Wiiat  would 
Baur  have  said  if  the  first  expression  had  been  found  in  Matthew  and  the  second  in 
Luke,  when  throughout  Luke's  narrative  as  it  is  he  sees  an  intention  to  depreciate 
this  scene  in  comparison  with  that  which  follows,  10  : 1,  et  seq,  f 

In  Jewish  estimation,  the  most  divine  form  of  power  is  that  of  working  miracles. 
It  is  with  this,  therefore,  that  Jesus  begins  :  dvvciiii,  the  power  of  execution  ;  e^ovaia, 
the  authoiily  which  is  the  foundation  of  it;  the  demons  will  therefore  otve  thum 
obedience,  and  will  not  fail,  in  fact,  to  render  it.  These  two  terms  are  opposed  to 
the  anxious  and  labored  practices  of  tlie  exorcit-ts.  Uupm  :  all  the  different  maladies 
coming  under  this  head— melancholy,  violence,  mania,  elc.  .  .  .  QcpaizeveLf,  to 
heal,  depends  neither  on  (%vafj.Lq  nor  k^ovnia,  but  on  e6uKEv,  He  gave  them;  there  is  no 
k^ovaia  in  regard  to  diseases.  Such  will  be  their  power,  their  weapon.  But  these 
cures  are  not  the  end  ;  tliey  are  only  the  means  designed  to  lend  support  to  their 
message.  The  end  is  indicated  in  ver.  2.  This  is  to  proclaim  throughout  Galilee 
the  commg  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time  to  make  the  people  feel  the 
grave  importance  of  the  present  time.  It  is  a  leturn  to  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist,  and  of  our  Lord's  at  its  commencement  (Mark  1  :  15).  This  undertaking 
was  within  the  power  of  the  Twelve.  "  To  preach  and  to  heal"  means  "  to  preach 
while  liealing. "  Only  imagine  the  messengers  of  the  Lord  at  the  present  day  travers- 
ing cur  country  with  the  announcement  of  His  second  coming  being  at  hand,  and 
confirming  their  message  by  miracles.  What  a  sensation  such  a  mission  would  pro- 
duce !  According  to  Mark,  the  Lord  sent  them  two  and  two,  which  recalls  their 
distribution  into  pairs,  Luke  G  :  13-15  ;  Matt.  10  :  2-4. 

2d.  Vers.  3-5.  f  Their  Instructions. — "  And  He  said  unto  tbern,  Take  nothing  for 
your  journey,  neither  staves,  nor  scrip,  neither  bread,  neither  money  ;  neither  have 
two  coats  apiece.     4.  And  whatsoever  house  ye  enter  into,  there  abide  and  thence 

*  Ver.  1.  T.  R.,  with  E.  F.  H.  L^  several  Mnn  lt""i.,  reads //«07?rn;;  n?jroi;  after 
SuAsKa  (taken  from  Matthew)  ;  11  Mjj.  100  ]\Inn.  Syr.  omit  these  words  ;  i^.  C*  L. 
X.  A.  Z.  some  ilnn.  I"''ii.  substitute  a-roaToXovi  for  tliem.  Ver.  2.  B.  SyT'""  omit 
Tovi  a'jOevovi'Tai  ;  it.  A.  D.  L.  X.  read  rovi  acOeveii. 

t  Ver.  3.  ».  B.  C*  D.  E*  F.  L.  M.  Z.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Ens.  read  pa/B^w 
instead  of  pa3(hvi.  whicli  is  the  reading  of  T.  R.  with  10  Mjj.  many  Mnn., but  which 
appears  taken  from  Matthew,  it.  B.  C*  F.  L.  Z.  omit  nm.  Ver.  4.  Vg.,  according 
to  C,  adds  fiTi  alter  eKeihcv,  Ver.  5.  it.  B.  C.  D.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  It»"i.  omii 
nai. 


254  COMMEifTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

depart.  5.  And  whosoever  will  not  receive  you,  when  ye  go  out  of  that  city,  shake 
off  the  very  dust  from  your  feet  for  a  testimony  against  them."  "Ver.  3  conlaius 
instructions  for  their  setting  out ;  ver.  4  instructions  respecting  their  arrival  and 
stay  ;  ver.  5,  instructions  for  leaving  each  place. 

Ver.  3.  The  feeling  of  confidence  is  the  key  to  the  injunctions  of  this  verse  : 
"  Make  no  preparations,  such  as  are  ordinarily  made  on  the  eve  of  a  journey  ;  set  out 
just  as  you  are.  God  will  provide  for  all  your  wants."  The  reply  of  the  apostles, 
22 :  35,  proves  that  this  promise  was  not  unfulfilled.  Mi?(5fv,  nothing  is  a  general 
negative,  to  which  the  subsequent,  iiijre,  neither  .  .  ,  nor  .  .  .  are  subordi- 
nate. Mark,  who  commences  with  a  simple  fii],  naturally  continues  with  the  negative 
(iri^e,  nor  further.  Each  writer,  though  expressing  the  same  idea  as  the  other,  has 
bis  own  particular  way  of  doing  it.  Luke  says,  neither  staff,  or,  according  to  another 
reading,  neither  staves  ;  Matthew  is  like  Luke  ;  Mark,  on  the  contrary,  save  one  staff 
only.  The  contradiction  in  terms  could  not  be  greater,  j'et  the  agreement  in  idea  is 
perfect.  For  as  far  as  the  sentiment  is  concerned  which  Jesus  wishes  to  express,  it 
is  all  one  to  say,  "nothing,  not  even  a  staff"  (Matthew  and  Luke),  or,  "nothing, 
except  it  be  simply  (or  at  juost)  a  staff"  (Mark).  Ebrard  makes  the  acute  observation 
that  in  Aramisean  Jesus  probably  said,  niTD  C^? '^2>  Z'^'*  i/"  •  •  •  a  stojf,  an  ellip- 
tical form  also  much  used  in  Hebrew,  and  which  may  be  filled  up  in  two  ways  :  For, 
if  you  take  a  staff,  this  of  itself  is  quite  sufficient  (Mark) ;  or,  this  of  itself  is  too  much 
(Matthew  and  Luke).  This  saying  of  Jesus  might  therefore  be  reproduced  in  Greek 
either  in  one  way  or  the  other.  But  in  no  case  could  these  two  opposite  forms  be 
explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  written  Greek  source.  Bleek,  who  piefera 
the  expressicm  given  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  does  not  even  attempt  to  explain  how 
that  in  Mark  could  have  originated.  If  we  read  staves,  according  to  a  various  read- 
ing found  in  Luke  and  ilatthew,  the  plural  must  naturally  be  applied  to  the  two 
apostles  travelling  together.  Luke  says,  Do  not  have  each  {avd,  disliibutive)  two 
coats,  that  is  to  say,  each  a  change  of  coat,  beyond  what  you  wear.  As  they  were 
not  to  have  a  travelling  cloak  (mjpa),  they  must  have  worn  the  second  coat  on  their 
person  ;  and  it  is  this  idea,  implied  by  Luke,  that  is  exactly  expressed  by  Mark, 
"neither  put  on  two  coats."  The  infinitive  fiij  ix^Lv  depends  on  elne  :  "He  said 
to  them    .     .     .     not  to  have.     .     .     ." 

As  an  unanswerable  proof  of  an  opposite  tendency  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  is 
usual  to  cile  the  omission  in  this  passage  of  the  prohibition  wilh  which  in  Matthew 
this  discourse  commences  (10  : 5)  :  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentile«,  Hud  into  any 
city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not :  but  go  rather  to  the  1'  si  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel."  But  even  in  Jlatthew  this  prohibition  is  not  absolute  (rather)  nor  permanent 
(28:10),  "Go  and  teach  all  nations'').  It  was  therefore  a  lestriction  temporarily 
imposed  upon  the  disciples,  in  consideration  of  the  privilege  accurded  to  the  Jewish 
nalion  of  being  the  cradle  of  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  With  some  exceptions,  for 
which  theie  were  urgent  reasons,  Jesus  Himself  was  generally  governed  by  this  rule. 
He  says,  indeed,  in  reference  to  His  earthly  ministry  :  "  I  am  not  sent  save  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel"  (Matt.  15  :  24)  ;  nevertheless,  He  is  not  ignorant 
that  it  is  His  mission  to  seek  and  to  save  all  that  tohich  is  lost,  and  conseciucuti}^  the 
heathen.  He  affirms  it  in  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Maik,  no  less  lh;in  in  that  of 
Luke.  Paul  himself  does  homage  to  this  diviue  fidelity,  when  he  recalls  the  fact  that 
Jesus,  during  His  earthly  life,  consented  to  become  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  (Rom. 
15  :  8).  But,  1.  What  reason  could  Luke  have,  in  the  circle  for  which  he  was  wilt- 
ing, to  refer  to  this  restriction  temporarily  imposed  upon  the  Twelve  for  the  puipose 
of  this  particular  mission  ?  2.  Mark,  no  less  than  Luke,  omits  these  words  in  the 
account  he  gives  of  this  discourse,  but  the  harmony  of  his  leaning  with  that  of  the 


CHAP.   IX,  :  3-G.  255 

first  evangelist  is  not  suspected.  3.  This  last  circumstance  makes  it  all  but  certain 
that  this  detail  had  already  been  omitted  in  the  sources  whence  these  two  evangelists 
drew  their  narratives,  and  must  completely  exculpate  Luke  from  all  anti-Jewish  prej- 
udice iu  his  reproduction  of  this  discourse. 

Yer.  4.  On  their  arrival  at  a  city,  they  were  to  settle  down  in  the  first  house  to 
which  they  obtained  access  {elc  yv  av,  into  tc/tatcver  house),  which,  however,  was  not 
to  exclude  prudence  and  well-ascertained  information  (Matthew)  ;  and,  once  settled 
in  a  house,  they  were  to  keep  to  it,  and  try  to  make  it  the  centre  of  a  divine  work  in 
that  place.  To  accept  the  hospitality  of  several  families  in  succession  would  be  the 
means  of  creating  rivalry.  It  would  tlierefore  be  from  this  house  also,  which  was 
the  first  to  welcome  them,  that  they  would  have  to  set  out  on  leaving  the  place  :  "  till 
ye  go  thence."  The  reading  of  the  Vulg.  :  "  Go  not  out  of  this  house,"  is  an  errone- 
ous correction.  In  the  primitive  churches  Christian  work  was  concentrated  in 
certain  houses,  which  continued  to  be  centres  of  operation  (comp.  the  expression  iu 
Paul's  epistles,  "  The  church  which  is  in  his  house"). 

Ver.  5.  The  gospel  does  not  force  itself  upon  men  ;  it  is  an  elastic  power,  pene- 
trating wherever  it  finds  access,  and  retiring  wherever  it  is  repulsed.  This  was  Jesus' 
own  mode  of  acting  all  through  His  ministry  (8  :  37  ;  John  3  :  22)  Tiie  Jews  were 
accustomed,  on  their  return  from  heathen  countries  to  the  Holy  Land,  to  shake  off 
the  dust  from  their  feet  at  the  frontier.  This  act  symbolized  a  breaking  away  from 
all  joint-pailicipatic  n  m  the  life  of  the  idolatrous  world.  The  apostles  were  to  act  in 
the  same  Avay  in  reference  to  any  Jewish  cities  which  might  reject  in  their  person  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Kai,  even  the  dust.  By  this  symbolical  act  they  relieved  them- 
sels'es  of  the  burden  of  all  farther  responsibility  on  account  of  the  people  of  that  city. 
The  expression,  for  a  testimony,  with  the  complement  £t'  avTov<^,  t/pon  them,  has 
evidently  reference  to  the  judgment  to  come  ;  iu  Maik  the  complement  avToli,for 
them,  makes  the  testimony  an  immediate  appeal  to  their  guilty  consciences. 

Zd.  Yer.  6.  'Ihe  Result. — Ata,  in  diTipxovro  (they  went  through),  has  for  its  comple- 
ment the  country  in  general,  and  denotes  the  extent  of  their  mission.  Kara,  which 
is  distributive,  expresses  the  accomplishment  of  it  in  detail  :  "  staying  in  every  little 
town."  Only  Mark  makes  mention  here  of  the  use  of  oil  in  healing  the  sick — a  re- 
markable circumstance,  with  which  the  precept,  James  5  :  14,  is  probably  connected. 
In  Matthew  the  discourse  absorbs  the  attention  of  the  historian  to  such  a  degree 
that  he  does  not  say  a  word,  at  the  end  of  chap.  10,  about  the  execution  of  their 
mission. 

This  short  address,  giving  the  Twelve  their  instructions,  is  onlv  the  preamble  in 
Matthew  (chap.  10)  to  a  much  more  extended  discourse,  in  which  Jesus  addi esses  the 
aposih^s  respcL-ting  their  future  ministry  in  general.  Under  the  influence  of  his  fixed 
idea,  Baur  maintains  that  Luke  purposely  abridged  tlie  discourse  in  Matthew,  in  order 
to  diminish  the  importance  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve,  and  bring  out  in  bolder 
relief  that  of  the  seventy  disciples  (Luke  10).  "  We  see,"  he  says,  "  that  every  word 
here,  so  to  speak,  is  too  much  for  ihe  evangelist"  ("  Evangel."  p.  43')).  But,  1.  If 
Luke  had  been  animated  by  the  jealous  feeling  with  this  criticism  imputes  to  him, 
and  so  had  allowed  himself  to  tamper  with  the  history,  would  hi."  have  put  the  elec- 
tion of  the  Twelve  (chap.  6),  as  distinct  from  their  first  mission,  into  such  promi- 
nence, when  Jlalthew  appears  to  confound  these  two  events  (10:1^)V  Would  ho 
mention  so  expressly  the  success  of  their  mission,  as  he  does,  ver.  6,  while  ]\Ialtlie\v 
himself  preserves  complete  silence  upon  this  point?  It  is  fortunate  for  Luke  that 
their  respective  parts  wtre  not  changed,  as  they  might  have  been  and  very  innocently, 
so  far  as  ho  is  coucerned.     He  would  iiave  hnd  to  pay  smartly  for  his  omission  in  the 


25G  CUilMENTAllY    0>i    ST.  LUKE. 

bauds  of  such  critics  !  2.  Mark  (6  :  8-10)  gives  this  discourse  in  exactly  the  same 
form  as  Luke,  and  not  at  all  after  Matthew's  mauuer  ;  he,  however,  is  not  suspccltd 
of  any  antipathy  to  the  Twelve.  It  follows  from  tliis,  tbat  Mark  and  Luku  have 
simply  given  the  discourse  as  they  found  it,  either  in  a  commua  document  (llie 
primitive  Mark,  according  to  Hollzmanu),or  in  documents  of  a  very  similar  chaiae- 
ter,  to  whicli  they  had  access.  There  is  suthcient  proof,  from  a  comparison  of  vei. 
G  in  Luke  with  ver.  lo  in  Mark,  that  of  these  two  suppositicnis  the  latter  must  be 
preferred.  3.  We  may  add,  lastly,  that  in  the  discourse  oih  the  apvstvlate  (Matt,  10)  it 
is  easy  to  recognize  the  same  characteristics  already  observed  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  It  is  a  cumposition  of  a  didactic  nature  on  a  dehuite  subject,  in  which  frag- 
ments of  very  different  discourses,  speaking  chronologically,  are  cullected  into  a 
single  discourse.  "The  instructions  it  contains,"  HuUzmauu  rightly  observes  (p. 
18;i),  "  go  far  beyond  the  actual  situation,  and  imply  a  nnicli  more  advanced  state  of 
things.  .  ,  ."  Bleek,  Evvald,  and  Hilgenfeld  also  recognize  the  more  evident 
indications  of  antici|)ation.  We  find  the  true  place  for  the  greater  part  of  the  passages 
grouped  together  in  Matthew,  under  the  heading,  general  instructions  on  the  apostolate, 
in  Luke  12  and  21.  For  all  these  reasons,  we  regard  the  accusation  brought  against 
Luke  respecting  this  discourse  as  scientifically  untenable. 

Ath.  Vers.  7-9.*  The  Fears  of  Herod. — This  passage  in  Matthew  (ch.  14)  is  sepa- 
rated by  several  chapters  from  the  preceding  narrative  ;  but  it  is  connected  with  it 
both  chronologically  and  morally  by  Luke  and  Mark  (6  :  14,  et  seq.).  It  was,  in  fact, 
the  stir  created  by  this  mission  of  the  Twelve  which  brought  the  fame  of  Jesus  to 
Herod's  ears  ("  for  His  name  was  spread  abroad,"  Mark  G  ;  14).  The  idea  of  this 
prince,  which  Luke  mentions,  that  Jesus  might  be  John  risen  from  the  dead,  is  the 
only  indication  which  is  to  be  found  iu  this  evangelist  of  the  murder  of  the  fore- 
runner. But  for  the  existence  of  this  short  passage  iu  Luke  it  would  have  been  laid 
down  as  a  critical  axiom  that  Luke  was  ignorant  of  the  murder  of  John  the  Baptist  ! 
The  saying,  Elias  or  one  of  the  old  prophets,  meant  a  great  deal — nothing  less,  in  the 
hinguage  of  that  time,  than  the  Messiah  is  at  hand  (Matt.  IG  •,  14  ,  John  1  :  21,  et  seq.) 
In  Matthew  and  Mark  the  supposition  that  Jesus  is  none  other  than  the  forerunner 
risen  from  the  dead  proceeds  from  Herod  himself.  In  Luke  this  apprehension  is  sug- 
gested to  him  by  popular  rumor,  which  is  certainlj'  more  natural.  The  repetition  of 
eyu,  I,  is,  as  Meyer  says,  the  echo  of  an  alarmed  conscience.  The  remarkable  detail, 
which  Luke  alone  has  preserved,  that  Herod  sought  to  have  a  private  interview  with 
Jesus,  indicates  an  original  source  of  information  closely  connected  with  this  king. 
Perhaps  it  reached  Luke,  or  the  author  of  the  document  of  which  he  availed  him- 
self, b}''  means  of  some  one  of  those  persons  whom  Luke  describes  so  exactly,  8  ;  3 
and  Acts  13  :1,  and  who  belpnged  to  Herod's  household. 

2.  llLe  Multiplication  of  the  Loaves:  9:10-17. — This  narrative  is  the  only  one  in 
the  entire  Galilean  ministry  which  is  common  to  the  four  evangelists  (Matt.  14  :  13, 
et  seq.  ;  Mark  G  :  30,  et  seq.  ;  John  G).  It  forms,  therefore,  an  important  mark  of 
connection  between  the  synoptical  narrative  and  John's.  This  miracle  is  placed,  in 
all  four  Gospels  alike,  at  the  apogee  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  Immediately  after  it,  in 
the  Syn.,  Jesus  begins  to  disclose  to  His  apostles  the  mystery  of  His  approaching  suf- 
ferings (Luke  9  :  18-27  ;  Matt.  IG  :  13-28  ;  Mark  8  :  27-38)  ;  in  John  this  miracle  leads 
to  an  important  crisis  in  the  work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  and  the  discourse  which  fol- 
lows alludes  to  the  approaching  violent  death  of  the  Lord  (6  :  53-5G). 

*  Yer.  7.  !!^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Z.  omit  vn'  avrov.  The  same  and  10  Mnn.,  jy/foO??  instead 
of  sjTiyepTai..  Yer.  8.  The  Alex.  rtS  instead  of  eiS.  Yer.  9.  !!^.  B.  C.  L.  Z.  omit  evu 
before  arrt/ce^aAtaa. 


(.'HAi'.    1  \.  :  ',    \[.  2")7 

Ist.  Vers.  10,  11.*  T/te  Occasion. — Accordin<;to  Luke,  the  Tiiotivo  ■which  induced 
Jesus  to  witlulnnv  into  a  desert  place  was  His  desire  fur  more  privacy  willi  His  dis- 
ciples that  lie  might  talk  with  them  of  their  experiences  during  their  mission.  Mark 
relates,  with  n  slight  difference,  that  His  object  was  to  secure  them  some  rest  after 
their  labors,  there  being  such  a  multitude  constantly  going  and  coming  as  to  leave 
them  no  leisure.  According  lo  Matthew,  it  was  the  news  of  the  murder  of  the  fore- 
runner which  led  Jesus  to  seek  solitude  with  Ills  disciples  ;  which,  however,  could  in 
no  way  imply  that  lie  sought  in  tliis  way  to  shield  Himself  from  Herod's  violence. 
For  how  could  He,  if  this  were  so,  have  entered  the  very  next  day  into  tlio  dominions 
of  this  sovereign  Olatt.  1-i  :  34  ;  comp.  with  Mark  and  John)  ?  All  these  facts  i)rovc 
the  nuitual  inikpeuJence  of  the  Syn.  ;  they  are  easUy  harmonized,  if  we  only  suppose 
that  the  intelligence  of  the  murder  of  John  was  communicated  to  Jesus  by  His  apos- 
tles on  their  return  from  their  mission,  that  it  made  Him  feel  deeply  the  approach  of 
His  own  end  (on  the  relation  between  these  two  deaths,  see  Matt.  17  :  12),  and  that  it 
was  while  He  was  under  these  impressions  that  He  desired  to  secure  a  season  of  retire- 
ment for  His  disciples,  and  aa  opportunity  for  more  private  intercourse  with  them. 

The  reailing  of  the  T.  R.  :  in  a  desert  place  of  the  city  called  Bethna'lda,  is  the  most 
complete,  but  for  this  very  reason  the  most  doubtful,  since  it  is  probably  made  u[)  out 
of  the  others.  The  reading  of  the  principal  Alex.,  in  a  citi/ called  Bet hmida,  om'Ws 
the  notion,  so  important  iu  this  passage,  of  a  desert  place,  probably  because  it  appeared 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  citi/,  and  specially  of  Bethsai'da,  where  Jesus  was  .so 
well  known.  The  reading  of  i^  and  of  the  Curetou  Sj'riac  translation,  in  a  desert 
place,  is  attractive  for  its  brevity.  But  whence  came  the  mention  of  Belhsaida  in  all 
the  other  variations  ?  Of  the  two  contradictory  notions,  the  desert  and  Bethsaida, 
this  reading  sacritices  the  proper  name,  as  the  preceding  had  sacriliced  the  desert.  The 
true  reading,  therefore,  appears  to  me  to  be  that  which  is  preserved  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion of  Schaaf  and  in  the  Italic,  in  a  desert  place  called  Bethsaida.  This  reading  retains 
the  two  ideas,  the  apparent  incousi-stency  of  which  has  led  to  all  these  alterations  of 
the  text,  but  iu  a  more  concise  and  at  the  same  time  more  correct  form  than  that  of 
the  received  reading.  It  makes  mention  not  of  a  city,  but  of  an  inhabited  country  on 
the  shore  of  the  lake,  bearing  the  name  of  Bethsaida.  If  by  this  expression  Luke  had 
intended  to  denote  the  city  of  Bethsaida  between  Capernaum  and  Tiberias,  on  the  west- 
ern side  of  the  lake,  the  country  of  Peter,  Andrew,  and  Philip,  he  would  be  in  open 
contradiction  to  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John,  who  place  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves 
on  the  ea.steru  side,  since  in  all  three  Jesus  crosses  the  sea  the  next  day  to  return  to 
Galilee  {into  the  country  of  Gennesareth,  Matt.  14  ;  34  ;  to  Bethsaida,  on  the  western 
shore,  Mark  G  :  45  ;f  to  Capernaum,  John  6  :  49).  But  in  this  case  Luke  would  con- 
tradict himself  as  well  as  the  others.  For  Bethsaida,  near  Capernaum,  being  situated 
in  the  centre  of  the  sphere  of  the  activity  of  Jesus,  how  could  the  Lord  repair  thither 
with  the  intention  of  linding  a  place  of  rciremtnt,  a  desert  place  '?  The  meaning  of 
the  name  Bethsaida  (Jtshiny  jjlace)  naturally  leads  us  to  suppose  that  there  were  sevcr:d 

*  Ver.  10.  T.  R.  witll  14  Mjj.  several  Mnn.,  rorrov  eprj/mu  no/ieox;  KaTiOVUCvrji 
BriOoaiAa.  li'".  B.  Jj.  X.  Z.  (Tiscji.  Stii  ed.),  tto/.lv  Ka/Mvutviiv  Br/jaauUi.  Syr*"^^".  It. 
Vulg. ,  TOTDV  ef)7]/inv  Ka'/ovfjEVov  YiTi'jGai()a.  ^*  SjT'^"''.,  Tonov  epr]fxov.  Ver.  11.  The 
MS3.  are  divided  between  ^ein/ievoT  and  fiTvoSe^afisvoi. 

f  It  is  really  incredible  that  Klo.stermann  should  have  been  induced  to  ad'^pt  an 
Snterpretation  so  forced  as  that  which  connects  the  words  -poi  B^''jo(ut)dv  with  the  fol- 
lowing proposition,  by  making  them  depend  on  uTro'/.va/j  :  "  until  He  had  sent  awuy 
the  people  to  Bethsaida  !" 


258  COMMEXTAllY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

fisheries  along  the  lake  of  this  name.  The  term  Bethsaula  of  Galilee,  John  12  :  21, 
coufirms  this  supposition  :  for  this  epithet  must  have  served  to  distinguish  this  Beth- 
saida  from  some  other.  Lastlj',  Jcsephus  (Anliq.  xviii.  2.  1  ;  Bell.  Jud.  ili.  10.  7)  and 
Pliny  (v.  15)  expressly  mention  another  Beihsaida,  situated  in  Gaulouitis,  at  the  north- 
east extremity  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  near  the  embouchure  of  the  Jordan.  The  tetrarch 
Philip  had  built  (probably  in  the  vicinity  of  a  district  of  this  country  called  Beth- 
sai'da),  a  city,  vv'hich  he  had  named,  after  a  daughter  of  Augustus,  Beth  said  a -cTw^ias 
the  ruins  of  which  Pococke  believes  he  has  discovered  on  a  hill,  the  name  of  which 
(Telui)  seems  to  signify  inountain  of  Julia  (Morgenl.  ii.  p.  lOG).*  There  Jesus  would 
more  easily  find  the  solitude  which  He  sought. 

The  term,  vnexcjpn'^e,  Be  withdrew,  does  not  inform  us  whether  Jesus  made  the 
journey  on  foot  or  by  boat.  Luke  doubtless  did  not  know  ;  he  confines  himself  to 
reproducing  his  information.  The  three  other  nairatives  apprise  us  that  the  journey 
was  made  by  water,  but  that  the  crowds  which,  contrary  to  the  intention  of  Jesus, 
knew  of  His  departure,  set  out  to  follow  Ilim  neZy,  on  foot  (Matthew  and  Mark),  by 
land,  and  that  the  more  eager  of  them  arrived  almost  as  soon  as  Jesus,  and  even,  ac- 
cording to  the  more  probable  reading  in  Mark,  before  Him.  The  bend  of  the  lake  at 
the  northern  end  approximates  so  closely  to  a  straight  line  that  the  journey  from 
Capernaum  to  Julias  might  be  made  as  quickly  by  laud  as  by  sea. f  The  unexpected 
arrival  of  the  people  defeated  the  plan  of  Jesus.  But  He  was  too  deeply  moved  by 
the  love  shown  for  Him  by  this  multitude,  like  sheep  without  a  shepherd  (Mark),  to 
give  them  anything  but  a  tender  welcome  {^e^dusvoi,  Luke)  ;  and  while  these  crowds 
of  people  were  flocking  up  one  after  another  (John  6  :  5),  a  loving  thought  ripened  in 
His  heart.  John  has  disclosed  it  to  us  (G  :  4).  It  was  the  time  of  the  Passover.  He 
could  not  visit;  .Jerusalem  with  His  disciples,  owing  to  the  virulent  hatred  of  which 
He  had  become  the  object.  la  this  unexpected  gathering,  resembling  that  of  the 
nation  at  Jerusalem,  He  discerns  a  signal  from  on  high,  and  determines  to  celebrate 
a  feast  in  the  desert,  as  a  compensation  for  the  Passover  feast. 

2d.  Vers.  12-15. t  The  Preparntions. — It  was  absolutely  impossible  to  find  suffi- 
cient food  in  this  place  for  such  a  multitude  ;  and  Jesus  feels  Himself  to  some  extent 
responsible  for  the  circumstances.  This  miracle  was  not,  therefore,  as  Keim  main- 
tains, a  purely  ostentatious  prodigy.     But  in  order  to  understand  it  thoroughly,  it  must 

*  Winer,  "  Realworterbuch." 

•f-  Konrad  Furrer,  in  the  work  cited,  p.  24,  maintains  that  John  (in  his  view,  the 
romancing  Pseudo-John  of  the  second  centuijO  places  the  multiplication  of  the  h)aves 
very  much  more  to  the  south,  opposite  Tiberias.  The  proof  of  this  assertion  V  John 
6:23:  "  Howbeit  tliere  came  other  boats  from  Tiberias  nigh  unto  the  place  where 
they  did  eat  bread."  It  appears,  according  to  M.  Furrer,  that  a  large  lake  can  only 
be  traversed  in  the  direction  of  its  width  aud  througti  the  middle  of  it  !  Pray,  why 
could  not  boats,  setting  out  from  Tiberias,  visit  Bethsaida-Julias,  where  it  was  un- 
derstood that  a  great  multitude  had  gone  V  Comp.  the  account  which  Josephus  gives 
of  the  transport  of  a  body  of  troops  from  Tarichese,  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the 
jake,  to  Julias,  and  of  the  transport  of  Josephus,  wounded,  from  Julias  to  Tarichese 
(Jus.  Vita,  §  72).  Keim  himself  says  :  "  The  multitude,  in  order  to  rejoin  Jesus, 
must  have  made  a  journey  of  six  leagues  round  the  lake"  (on  the  hj^pothesis  of 
Furrer)  ;  and  how  couM  Jesus  say  tolJis  disciples,  when  He  sent  them  away  to  the 
other  side,  after  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  that  He  should  very  soon  join  them 
(John  6:17;  Matt.  14  :  22  ;  Mark  6  :  45)  ?  It  is  on  such  grounds  {auf  topographiscli^ 
Bcioeise  gestutzt)  that  the  evansrelist  Jolm  is  made  out  to  Ite  an  artist  and  romancer  ! 

X  Ver.  12.  ».  A.  B.  C.  D.^L.  R.  Z.,  TropcvOeiTEf  instead  of  QTf?.9ovrej.  Ver.  14. 
5»,  L.  If'''!.  Vg.,  tJf  instead  of  yap.     it.  E.  C.  D.  L.  R.  Z.,  unn  ava  instead  of  ava. 


CHAP.  IX.  :  12-17.  259 

be  looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  presented  by  John.  In  the  Syn.  it  is  the  disciples 
■wbo,  as  evening  draws  near,  cjill  the  attention  of  Jesus  to  the  situalion  of  tlie  peo- 
ple ;  He  answers  them  by  inciting  tiieni  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  tlie  multiliule 
themselves.  In  John  it  is  Jesus  wiio  takes  the  initiative,  addressing  Himself  specially 
to  Philip  ;  then  He  confers  with  Andrew,  who  has  succeeded  in  discovering  a  young 
lad  furnished  with  some  provisions.  It  is  not  difficult  to  reconcile  these  two  ac- 
counts ;  but  in  the  first  we  recognize  the  blurred  lines  of  tradition,  in  the  second  the 
recollections  of  an  eye-witucbs  full  of  freshness  and  accuracy.  The  two  hundred 
pennyworth  of  bread  formsaremaikable  mark  of  agreement  between  the  narrative  of 
John  and  that  of  ^lark.  John  does  not  depend  on  Mark  ;  his  narrative  is  distin- 
guished by  too  many  marks  of  originality.  Neither  has  Mark  copied  from  John  ;  he 
would  not  have  effaced  the  strongly  marked  features  of  the  narrative  of  the  latter. 
From  this  coincidence  in  such  a  very  insignificant  detail  we  obtain  a  remarkable  con- 
firmation of  all  those  little  characteristics  by  which  Mark's  narrative  is  so  often  dis- 
tinguislied,  and  which  De  Wette,  Bleek,  and  others  regard  as  amplifications. 

Jesus  has  no  sooner  ascertained  that  there  are  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  than  He  is 
satisfied.  He  commands  them  to  make  the  multitude  sit  down.  Just  as  though  He 
had  said  :  I  have  what  I  want  ;  the  meal  is  ready  ;  let  them  be  seated  !  But  He 
takes  care  that  this  banquet  shall  be  conducted  with  an  order  worthy  of  the  God  who 
gives  it.  Everything  must  be  calm  and  solemn  ;  it  is  a  kind  of  passover  meal.  By 
the  help  of  the  apostles,  He  seats  His  guests  in  rows  of  fifty  each  (Matthew),  or  in 
double  rows  of  fiftj-,  by  hundreds  (Mark).  This  orderly  arrangement  allowed  of  the 
guests  being  easily  counted.  Mark  describes  in  a  dramatic  manner  the  striking  spec- 
tacle presented  by  these  regularl}^- formed  companies,  each  consisting  of  two  equal 
ranks,  and  all  arranged  upon  the  slope  of  the  hill  {av/iiroaia  avfinuaia,  npaaial  npaaial, 
ver.  39,  40).  The  pastures  at  that  time  were  in  all  their  spring  splendor,  and  John 
and  Mark  offer  a  fresh  coincidence  here,  in  that  they  both  bring  forward  the  beauty 
of  this  natural  carpet  (xopros  TroTiVc,  John  ;  x^<^P^'^  X"P'''o^>  Mark  ;  Matthew  says, 
ol  xoproi).  In  conformity  with  oriental  usage,  according  to  which  women  and  chil- 
dren must  keep  themselves  apart,  the  men  alone  {ol  uvSpsZ,  John  5  :  10)  appear  to  be 
seated  in  the  order  indicated.  This  explains  why,  according  to  the  Syn.,  they  alone 
were  counted,  as  Luke  says  (ver.  14),  also  Mark  (ver.  44),  and,  more  emphatically 
still,  Matthew  (ver.  21,  "  without  women  and  children"). 

Zd.  Vers.  16,  17.*  Th^  Repast.— The  pronouncing  of  a  blessing  by  Jesus  is  an  inci- 
dent preserved  in  all  four  narratives.  It  must  have  produced  a  special  impression  on 
all  the  four  witnesses.  Each  felt  that  this  act  contained  the  secret  of  the  marvellous 
power  displayed  on  this  occasion.  To  bless  God  for  a  little  is  the  way  to  obtain 
much.  In  Matthew  and  Mark,  tvl/JyTjae,  He  blessed,  is  absolute  :  the  object  uuder- 
stood  is  God.  Luke  adds  avroii,  them  (the  food),  a  word  which  the  yinaiticus  erases 
(wrongly,  it  is  clear),  in  accordance  with  the  two  other  Syn.  It  is  a  kind  of  sacra- 
mental consecration.  John  uses  the  word  evxapifrrelv,  which  is  chosen,  perhaps,  not 
without  reference  to  the  name  of  the  later  paschal  feast  (eucharist).  The  imperfect 
ididov  in  Luke  and  Mark  is  graphic  :  "  He  gave,  and  kept  on  giving."  The  mention 
of  the  fragments  indicates  the  complete  satisfaction  of  their  hunger.  In  John  it  is 
Jesus  who  orders  them  to  be  gathered  up.  This  act  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  an 
expression  of  filial  respect  for  the  gift  of  the  Father.     The  twelve  baskets  are  men- 


*  Ver.  16.  !*.  X.  Syr"'',  omit  avTov;. 


260 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 


tioned  in  all  the  four  narratives.  The  baskets  belonged  to  the  furniture  of  a  caravan. 
Probably  tliey  were  what  the  apostles  had  provided  themselves  with  when  they  set 
out.  The  number  of  the  persons  fed  is  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark  here.  Luke 
had  mentioned  it  already  in  the  14th  verse,  after  the  reply  of  the  disciples  ;  John  a 
little  later  (ver.  10),  at  the  moment  when  tlie  companies  were  being  seated.  What 
unaccountable  caprice,  if  these  narratives  were  taken  from  each  other,  or  even  from 
the  same  written  source  ! 

The  criticism  which  sets  out  with  the  denial  of  the  supernatural  is  compelled  to 
erase  this  fact  from  the  history  of  Jesus  ;  and  this  miracle  cannot,  in  fact,  be  ex- 
plained by  the  "  hidden  forces  of  spontaneit\^ "  by  the  "  charm  wliich  a  person  of 
fine  organization  exercises  over  weak  nerves."  It  is  not  possible  cither  to  fall  buck, 
with  some  c<immenlators,  on  the  process  of  vegetation,  by  supposing  here  an  unusual 
acceleration  of  it  ;  we  have  to  deal  with  bread,  not  with  corn  ;  with  cooked  fish,  not 
with  living  creatures.  The  fact  is  miraculous,  or  it  is  nothing.  M.  Renan  has 
returned  to  the  ancient  interpretation  of  Paulus  :  Every  one  look  his  little  store  of 
provisions  from  his  wallet  ;  they  lived  on  very  little.  Kelm  combines  with  this  ex- 
planation tlie  mythical  interpretation  in  two  ways— imitation  of  tbe  0.  T.  (the 
manna  ;  Elisha,  2  Kings  4  :  42),  and  the  Christian  idea  of  the  multii)]icalion  of  the 
Word,  the  food  of  the  soul.  With  the  explanation  of  Paulus,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive what  could  hiive  excited  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  to  the  point  of  making 
them  instantly  resolve  to  proclaim  Jesus  as  their  King  !  The  mylliical  inlerpieiation 
has  to  contencl  with  special  difficulties.  Four  parallel  and  yet  oi  iginal  narratives  wonder- 
fully supplementing  each  other,  a  number  of  minute  precise  details  quite  incompati- 
ble with  the  nebulous  character  of  a  myth  (the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  the  oOOO 
persons,  the  ranks  of  fifty,  and  the  companies  of  a  hundred,  the  twelve  baskets) — all 
ihese  details,  preserved  in  four  independent  and  yet  harmonious  accounts,  indicate 
either  a  real  event  or  a  deliberate  invention.  But  the  hypf.thcsis  of  invention,  which 
Baur  so  freely  applies  to  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  finds  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  here  in  the  accounts  of  the  three  other  evangelists.  How  is  criti- 
cism to  get  out  of  this  network  of  difficulties?  When  it  hns  exhsiusted  its  ingenuity, 
it  will  end  by  laying  down  its  arms  before  the  holy  simplicity  of  this  narrative. 

3.  First  Announcement  of  the  Passion  :  9  :  18-27.— Up  to  the  first  multiplication  of 
the  loaves,  it  is  impossible  to  make  out  any  continuous  synchronism  between  the 
synoptics,  as  the  following  table  of  the  series  of  preceding  incidents  shows  : 


Matthew. 

Makk. 

Luke. 

Gadara. 

Accusation  (Beelzebub). 

Parable  of  the  sower. 

The  Paralytic. 

Call  of  Matthew. 

Mother  and  brethren  of 

Mother  and  brethren  of 

Jesus. 

Jesus. 

Jairus.     . 

The  blind  and  dumb. 

Parable  of  the  sower. 

Mission  of  the  Twelve. 

Deputation  of  John  Bapt. 

Gadara. 

Gadara. 

Sabbatic  scenes. 

Jairus. 

Jairus. 

Accusation  (Beelzebub). 

Mother  and  brethren  of 

Nazareth. 

Jesus. 

The  seven  parables. 

Mission  of  the  Twelve. 

Mission  of  the  Twelve. 

Nazareth. 

Murder  of  John  Baptist. 

Murder  of  John  Baptist. 

Desert   and   first  multipli- 

Desert  and   first  multipli- 

Desert  and   first  multipli 

cation. 

cation. 

cation. 

Numbers  might  be  thrown  into  a  bag  and  taken  out  again  hap-hazard  thrice  over, 
without  obtaining  an  order  apparently  more  capricious  and  varied.     Yet  of  these 


CHAP.   IX.  :  18-27. 


261 


three  narratives,  one  is  supposed  to  be  copied  from  the  other,  or  to  have  emanated 
from  the  same  writtou  source  ! 

Nevertheless,  toward  the  end  a  certain  parallelism  begins  to  show  itself,  first  of 
all  between  Mark  and  Luke  (Gadara,  Jairus.  Mission  of  the  Twelve),  then  between 
3Ialtliew  and  Mark  (Nazaielh,  murder  of  John,  desert  and  tirst  muliiplication). 
Tills  convergence  of  the  three  narratives  into  one  and  the  same  line  proceeds  from 
this  point,  after  a  considerable  omission  in  Luke,  and  becomes  more  decidedly  marked, 
until  it  reaches  Luke  9  :  50,  as  appears  from  the  following  table  : 

Luke. 
As  Matthew. 

Wanting. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
As  Matthew. 

Id. 
Id. 
Id. 

Wanting. 

As  Matthew. 

Id. 

As  Mark. 

Wanting. 

How  is  the  large  omission  to  be  explained  which  Luke's  narrative  exhibits  from 
the  storm  folhuving  the  first  multiplication  to  the  last  announcement  of  the  Passion, 
corresponding  to  two  whole  chapters  of  Matthew  (14  •  22-1(3  :  12)  and  of  iMark 
(6:45-8:26)?  How  is  the  tolerably  exact  synchronism  which  shows  itself  from 
this  time  between  all  three  to  be  accounted  for  ?  Meyer  gives  up  all  attempts  to  ex- 
plain the  omission  ;  it  was  due  to  an  unknown  chance.  Reuss  (§  189)  thinks  that  the 
copy  of  Mark  which  Luke  used  presented  an  omission  in  this  place.  Bleek  attrib- 
utes the  omission  to  the  original  Greek  Gospel  which  Matthew  and  Luke  made  use 
of  ;  Matthew,  he  supposes,  filled  it  up  by  means  of  certain  documents,  and  Mark 
copied  Matthew.  Holtzruann  (p.  223)  contents  himself  with  saying  that  Luke  here 
breaks  the  thread  of  A.  (primitive  Mark),  in  order  to  connect  with  his  narrative  the 
portion  which  follows  ;  but  he  says  nothing  that  might  serve  to  expltiiu  this  strange 
procedure.  But  the  hypothesis  upon  which  almost  all  these  attempted  solutions  rest 
is  that  of  a  common  original  document,  which,  however,  is  continuall}'  contradicted 
by  the  numerous  differences  both  in  form  and  matter  which  a  .single  glance  of  the  eye 
discovers  between  Matthew  and  Mark.  Then,  with  all  this,  the  difficulty  is  onh'  re- 
moved a  step  farther  back.  For  it  liccomes  necessary  to  explain  the  omission  in  the 
original  document.  And  whenever  this  is  done  satisfactorily,  it  will  be  found  ueces- 
sarj'  to  have  recourse  to  the  following  idea,  which,  for  our  own  part,  we  apply 
directly  to  Luke.  In  the  original  preaching  of  the  gospel,  particidar  incidents  were 
naturally  grouped  together  m  certain  cycles  more  or  less  fixed,  determined  sometimes 
by  chronological  connection  (the  call  of  ^latthew,  the  fea-st  and  the  subsequent  con- 


Matthew. 

Mark. 

Desert   and  first   multiplica- 

As Matthew. 

tion. 

Tempest  (Peter  on  the  water). 

Tempest  (without  Peter) 

Purifying  and  clean  food. 

As  Matthew. 

Canaanitish  woman. 

Id. 

Second  midliplication. 

Id. 

Sijrn  from  heaven  (Decapolis). 

Id. 

Leaven  of  the  Pharisees. 

Id. 

First  annoanceraent  of    the 

Id. 

Passion. 

Transfiguration. 

Id. 

Lunatic  clnld. 

Id. 

Second  announcement  of  the 

Id. 

Passion. 

The  Didraclnua. 

Wanting. 

The  example  of  the  child. 

As  Matthew. 

Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

Id. 

Wanting. 

Intolerance, 

Forgiveness  of  offences. 

Wanting. 

S62  COMMENTARY    ON   ST,  LUKE. 

versations.  the  tempest,  Gadara,  and  Jairiis).  sometimes  by  the  similarity  of  the  sub- 
jects (Ihe  Sabbatic  scenes,  6  : 1-11).*  Tliese  cycles  were  first  of  all  put  in  writing, 
■with  considerable  freedom  and  variety,  sometimes  by  the  preachers  for  their  own  use, 
and  in  other  cases  by  their  hearers,  who  were  anxious  to  fix  their  recollection  of 
them.  The  oldest  writings  of  which  Luke  speaks  (1  : 1)  were  probably  collections 
more  or  less  complete  of  these  groups  of  narratives  (avard^aadai  diijyrjaiv).  And  what 
in  this  case  can  be  more  readily  imagined  than  the  omission  of  one  or  the  other  of 
these  cycles  in  any  of  these  collections  ?  An  accident  of  this  kind  is  sufficient  to  ex- 
plain the  great  omission  whicb  we  meet  with  in  Luke.  The  cycle  wanting  in  the 
document  he  used  extended  a  little  farther  than  the  second  multiplication  of  the 
loaves,  while  the  following  portions  belong  to  a  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  which, 
from  the  beginning,  had  taken  a  more  definite  form  in  the  preaching.  This  was 
natural  ;  for  the  facts  of  which  this  subsequent  series  is  composed  are  closely  con- 
nected by  a  double  tie,  both  chronological  and  moral.  The  subject  is  the  approach- 
ing sufferings  of  Jesus.  The  announcement  of  them  to  the  disciples  is  the  aim  of  the 
following  discourse  ;  and  to  strengthen  their  faith  in  view  of  this  overwlielming 
thought  is  evidently  the  design  of  the  transfiguration.  The  cure  of  the  lunatic  child, 
which  took  place  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  was  associated  with  the  transfiguration 
in  the  tradition  ;  the  second  announcement  of  the  Passion  naturally  followed  the  first, 
and  all  the  more  since  it  took  place  during  the  return  from  Csesarea  to  Capernaum  ; 
which  was  the  case  also  with  certain  manifestations  of  pride  and  intolerance  of  which 
the  apostles  were  then  guilty,  and  the  account  of  which  terminates  this  part.  In  the 
tradition,  this  natural  cycle  formed  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  And  this  ex- 
plains how  the  series  of  facts  has  been  preserved  in  almost  identical  order  in  the  three 
narratives. 

The  following  conversation,  reported  also  by  Matthew  (16  :  13  et  seq.)  and  Mark 
(8  :  27  et  seq.),  refers  to  three  points  ;  \sf.  The  Christ  (vers.  18-20)  ;  2d.  The  suffering 
Christ  (vers.  21  and  22) ;  M.  The  disciples  of  the  suffering  Christ  (vers.  23-27). 

Jesus  lost  no  time  in  returning  to  His  project  of  seeking  a  season  of  retirement,  a 
project  which  had  been  twice  defeated,  at  Bethsaida-Julias,  by  the  eagerness  of  the 
multitude  to  follow  Him,  and  again  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  where,  notwithstanding  His 
desire  to  remain  liid  (Mark  7  :  24),  His  presence  had  been  discovered  by  the  Canaanit- 
ish  woman,  and  afterward  noised  abroad  through  the  miracle  which  took  place. 
After  that  He  had  returned  to  the  south,  had  visited  a  second  time  that  Decapolis 
which  he  had  previously  been  obliged  to  quit  almost  as  soon  as  He  entered  it.  Then 
He  set  out  again  for  the  north,  this  time  directing  His  steps  more  eastward,  toward 
the  secluded  valleys  where  the  Jordan  rises  at  the  foot  of  Hermon.  The  city  of 
C^esarea  Philippi  was  situated  there,  inhabited  by  a  people  of  whom  the  greater  part 
were  heathen  (Josephus,  Vita,  §  13).  Jesus  might  expect  to  find  in  this  secluded 
country  the  solitude  which  He  had  sought  in  vain  in  other  parts  of  the  Holy  Land. 
He  did  not  visit  the  city  itself,  but  remained  in  the  hamlets  which  surround  it  (Mark), 
or  generally  in  those  quarters  (Matthew). 

1st.  Vers.  18-20.  The  Christ. — According  to  Mark,  the  following  conversation 
took  place  during  the  journey  (ev  ry  66^)  ;  Mark  thus  gives  precision  to  the  vaguer 
indication  of  Matthew.     The  name  of  Caesarea  Philippi  is  wanting  in  Luke's  narra- 

*  For  the  working  out  of  a  similar  idea,  see  Lachmann's  fine  work,  '  Stud.  u. 
Kritiken,"  1835. 


CHAP.  IX.  :  18-20.  2G3 

tive.  Will  criticism  succeed  in  finding  a  doj^matic  motive  for  this  omission?  In  a 
writer  lilcw  Luivo,  who  loves  to  be  precise  about  places  (ver.  10)  and  times  (ver.  28), 
f  his  omission  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  ignorance  ;  therefore  he  possessed  neither 
3Iark  nor  Matthew,  nor  the  documents  from  which  these  last  derived  this  name. 
The  description  of  the  moral  situation  belongs,  however,  to  Luke  :  Jesus  had  just 
been  nlone  praying.  "  Arbitrary  and  ill-chosen  scenery,"  says  Hultzmann  (p.  224). 
One  would  like  to  know  the  grounds  of  this  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  German 
critic.  Would  not  Jesus,  at  the  moment  of  disclosing  to  His  disciples  for  the  first 
time  the  alarming  prospect  of  His  approaching  death,  foreseeing  the  impression  which 
this  communication  would  make  upon  them,  having  regard  also  the  manner  in  which 
He  must  speak  to  them  under  such  circumstances,  be  likely  to  prepare  Himself  for 
this  important  step  by  prayer?  Besides,  it  is  probable  that  the  disciples  took  part  in 
His  prayer.  Tiie  imperfect  awijaav ,  they  were  gathered  together  with  Ilim,  appears  to 
indicate  as  much.  And  the  term  Karajiovag  (6(hvi  understood),  in  solitude,  in  no  way 
excludes  the  presence  of  the  disciples,  but  simply  that  of  the  people.  This  appears 
from  the  antithesis,  ver.  23  :  "  And  He  said  to  them  all,"  and  especially  from  Mark 
ver.  34  :"  Having  called  the  multitude."  The  expression,  they  were  gatheivd  together, 
indicates  something  of  importance.  Jesus  first  of  all  elicits  from  His  disciples  the 
different  opinions  which  they  had  gathered  from  the  lips  of  the  people  during  their 
mission.  The  object  of  this  first  question  is  evidently  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
next  (ver.  20).  On  the  opinions  here  enumerated,  see  ver.  8  and  John  1  :  21.  They 
amount  to  this  :  Men  generally  regard  thee  as  one  of  the  forerunners  of  the  Messiah. 
The  question  addressed  to  the  disciples  is  designed,  first  of  all,  to  make  them  dis- 
tinctly conscious  of  the  wide  difference  between  the  popular  opinion  and  the  convic- 
tion at  which  they  have  themselves  arrived  ;  next,  to  serve  as  a  starting-point  for  the 
fresh  communication  which  Jesus  is  about  to  make  respectiog  the  manner  in  which 
the  work  of  the  Christ  is  to  be  accomplished.  The  confession  of  Peter  is  differently 
expressed  in  the  three  narratives  :  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  (Matthew)  ;  the 
Christ  (^lark)  ;  the  Christ  of  God  (Luke).  The  form  in  Luke  holds  a  middle  place  be- 
tween the  other  two.  The  genit.,  of  God,  signifies,  as  in  the  expression  Zaw6  of 
God,  He  who  belongs  to  God,  and  whom  God  sends. 

It  has  been  inferred  from  this  question,  that  up  to  this  time  Jesus  had  not  assumed 
His  position  as  the  Messiah  among  His  disciples,  and  that  His  determination  to 
accept  this  character  dates  from  this  point ;  that  this  resolution  was  taken  partly  in 
concession  to  tiie  popular  idea,  which  required  that  His  work  of  restoration  should 
assume  this  form,  and  parti}'  to  meet  the  expectation  of  the  disciples,  which  found 
emphatic  expression  through  tiie  lips  of  Peter,  the  most  impatient  of  their  number. 
But,  1.  The  question  in  ver.  20  has  not  the  character  of  a  concession  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, Jesus  thereby  takes  llic  initiative  in  the  confession  which  it  calls  forth.  2.  If 
this  view  be  maintained,  all  those  previous  sayings  and  incidents  in  which  Jesus  gives 
Himself  out  to  be  the  Clirist  must  be  set  aside  as  unauthentic  ;  and  there  are  such 
nf)t  only  in  John  (1  :  30-41,  49-51  ;  3  :  14,  4  :  26),  but  in  the  Syn.  (the  election  of 
the  Twelve  as  heads  of  a  new  Israel  ;  the  parallel  which  Jesus  institutes.  Matt.  5, 
between  Himself  and  the  lawgiver  of  Sinai:  "  You  have  heard  that  it  hath  been 
said  .  .  .  but  I  .  .  .  ;"  tlie  title  of  bridegroom  which  He  gives  Himself, 
Luke  5  :  30,  and  parallels).  Tlie  resolution  of  Jesus  to  assume  the  character  of  the 
Messiah,  and  to  accomplish  under  this  national  form  His  universal  task  as  Saviour  of 
the  world,  was  certainly  matured  within  His  soul  from  the  first  day  of  His  public 
activity.  The  scenes  of  the  baptism  and  temptation  forbid  any  other  supposition  ; 
hence  the  entire  absence  of  anything  like  feeling  His  way  in  tlic  progress  of  His 
minlstr/      The  import  of  His  question  is  therefore  something  very  different.     The 


26-t  COMMEIS'TARY   O^S"   ST.  LUKE. 

time  had  come  for  Him  to  pass,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  to  a  new  chapter  ir  ''Hs 
teaching.  He  had  hitherto,  especially  sioce  He  hegan  to  teach  in  parables,  dire^'ed 
the  attention  of  His  disciples  to  the  near  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  was 
now  necessary  to  turn  it  towaid  Himself  as  Head  of  this  kingdom,  and  espec«<iily 
toward  the  future,  wholly  unlooked  for  by  them,  which  awaited  Him  in  this  char- 
acter. They  knew  that  He  was  the  Christ  ;  they  had  yet  to  learn  how  He  was  to  be 
it.  But  before  commencing  on  this  new  ground.  He  is  anxious  that  they  should  ex- 
press in  a  distinct  declaration,  the  result  of  His  instructions  and  of  their  own  previous 
experiences.  As  an  experienced  teacher,  before  beginniug  the  new  lesson  He  malces 
them  recapitulate  the  old.  With  the  different  forms  and  vacillations  of  opinion,  as 
well  as  the  open  denials  of  the  ruleis  before  them.  He  wants  to  hear  from  iheir  own 
lips  the  expression  of  their  own  warm  and  decided  conviction.  This  established  result 
of  His  previous  labor  will  serve  as  a  foundation  for  the  new  labor  which  the  gravity 
of  His  situation  urges  Him  to  undertake.  The  murder  of  John  the  Baptist  made  Him 
sensible  that  His  own  end  was  not  far  off  ;  the  tune,  therefore,  was  come  to  substitute 
for  the  brilliant  form  of  the  Christ,  which  as  yet  filled  the  minris  of  His  discipies,  the 
mournful  image  of  the  Man  of  sorrows.  Thus  the  facts  which,  as  we  have  seen  (p. 
257),  led  Jesus  to  seek  retirement  in  the  deseit  of  Btlhsaida- Julias,  that  He  might  be 
alone  with  His  disciples,  furnished  the  motives  for  the  present  conversation. 

We  read  in  John,  after  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (chap.  6),  of  a  similar 
(confession  to  this,  also  made  by  Peter  iu  tlie  name  of  the  Twelve.  Is  it  to  be  sup- 
posed, that  at  the  same  epoch  two  such  similar  declarations  should  have  taken  place? 
Would  Jesus  have  called  for  one  so  so(>n  after  having  licard  iLe  olhei  ?  Is  it  not 
striking  that,  owing  to  the  omission  in  Luke,  the  account  of  this  crnfession,  in  his 
narrative  as  in  John's  follows  immediately  upon  that  of  the  multiplicalion  of  the 
loaves?  Certainly  the  situation  des(-ribed  in  the  f(  urih  Gnsjiel  is  veiy  different  In 
consequence  of  a  falling  away  which  had  just  been  going  (  n  simong  His  Galilean 
disciples.  Jesus  puts  the  question  to  His  apostles  cf  ilitir  having  Him.  But  Ihe 
questions  which  Jesus  addresses  to  them  in  the  Syn.  niight  easily  Lave  fiund  a  place 
in  the  conversation  of  which  John  gives  us  a  meie  cuthne.  At  the  first  ghmce,  it  is 
true,  John's  narrative  dues  not  lead  us  to  suppose  such  a  long  interval  between  the 
multiplication  of  the  loaves  and  this  conversation  as  is  Hquind  for  the  jouiney  from 
Capernaum  to  Csesarea  Philippi.  But  the  desertion  of  the  Galilean  disciples,  which 
had  beiiun  immediately,  was  not  completed  in  a  day.  It  might  have  exti  nded  over 
some  time  (John  6  :  66  :  U  TovTov,from  that  Hme).  Alligelher  the  resemblance  be- 
tween these  two  scenes  appears  to  us  to  outweigh  their  dissimilaiity. 

Keim  admirably  says  :  "  We  do  not  know  which  we  must  think  the  greatest; 
whether  the  spirit  ot  "the  disciples,  who  shatter  the  Messianic  mould,  set  aside  the 
judgment  of  the  priests,  rise  above  all  the  intervening  degrees  of  popular  apprecia- 
tion, and  proclaim  as  lofty  and  divine  that  which  is  abased  and  downtrodden,  be- 
cause to  their  minds'  eye  it  is  and  remains  great  and  divine— or  this  personality  of 
Jesus,  which  draws  from  these  feeble  disciples,  notwithstanding  the  piessure  of  (he 
most  overwiielming  experiences,  so  puie  and  lofty  an  expitssirn  of  the  effect  pro- 
duced upon  them  by  His  whole  life  and  ministry."  Gess  :  "  The  sages  of  Caper- 
naum remained  unrrioved,  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  was  cooled,  on  every  side 
Jesus  was  threatened  with  the  fate  of  .the  Baptist  ...  it  was  then  that  the  faith 
of  His  disciples  shone  out  as  genuine,  and  came  forth  from  the  furnace  of  trial  as  an 
energetic  conviction  of  truth." 

m.  Vers.  21,  22.*  The  Suffering  Chriftt.— The  expression  of  Luke."  He  strait ly 
charged  and  commanded  them."  is  very  energetic.  The  general  reason  for  this  pro- 
hibition is  found  in  the  following  announcement  of  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah,  as 
is  proved  by  the  participle  eItt^v,  saying.  They  were  to  keep  from  proclaiming  Him 
openly  aa  the  Christ,  on  account  of  the  contradiction  between  the  hopes  which  this 
title  had  awakened  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  the  way  in  which  this  office  was 

*  The  Mss.  vary  between  ecneiv  (T.  R.)  and  ?ie}eiv  (Alex.).  Ver.  22.  The  mss. 
vary  between  cy.Tp'irji'ai  (T-  R-)  '^nd  au((^<  ai^u-. 


CHAP.   IX.  :2l,  22.  2G5 

to  bc!  rcalizod  in  Him.  But  this  threatening  prohibition  liad  a  moro  spociiil  nature, 
which  a|)pi'ars  from  John's  narrative.  It  refers  to  tlie  recent  attempt  of  the  people, 
after  tlie  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (John  G  :  li,  15).  to  i)roclaim  Him  king,  and  the 
efforts  whicii  Jesus  -was  thin  obli!j:e(l  to  make  to  preserve  His  disciples  from  th's  mis- 
taken enthusiasm,  which  miuht  have  seriously  compromised  His  work,  ll  is  the  recol- 
lection of  this  critical  moment  which  induces  Jesus  to  use  this  severe  language  {fttit- 
ijiijaa^).  It  was  only  after  the  idol  of  the  carnal  Christ  had  been  forever  nailed  to 
the  cross,  that  the  apostolic  preaching  could  safely  connect  this  title  Christ  with  the 
name  of  Jesus.  "  See  how,"  as  Riggenbach  says  ("  Vie  de  Jesus,"  p.  318),  "  Jesus 
was  obliged  in  the  very  moment  of  self- revelation  to  veil  Himself,  when  He  had 
lighted  the  fire  to  cover  it  again."  Ae  (ver.  21)  is  adversative  :  "  Thou  sayest  tru!}', 
I  am  the  Christ ;  hut  ..."  Must,  on  account  of  the  prophecies  and  of  the  Divine 
purpose,  of  which  they  are  the  expression.  The  members  composing  the  Sanhedrim 
consisted  of  three  classes  of  members  :  the  elders,  or  presidents  of  synagogues  ;  the 
high  priests,  the  heads  ot  twenty-four  classes  of  priests  ;  and  scribes,  or  men  learned 
in  the  law.  All  three  Syu.  give  here  the  enumeration  of  these  official  classes.  This 
paraphrase  of  the  technical  name  invests  the  announcement  of  the  rejection  with  all 
its  importance.  "What  a  complete  reversal  of  the  disciples'  Messianic  ideas  was  this 
rejection  of  Jesus  by  the  very  authorities  from  whom  they  expected  tiie  recognition 
and  proclamation  of  the  Messiah  I  'Ano(hKi/ii<iaOrjvaL  indicates  deliberate  rejection,  after 
previous  calculation.  There  was  a  crushing  contradiction  between  this  prospect  and 
the  hopes  of  the  disciples  ;  but,  as  Klostermann  truly  says,  the  last  words,  "  And  He 
shall  rise  again  the  third  day,"  furnish  the  solution  of  it. 

Strauss  and  Baur  contented  themselves  with  denying  the  details  of  the  prediction 
in  whicii  Jesus  foretold  His  death.  Volkmar  and  Holslen  at  the  present  day  refuse 
to  alli)\v  that  He  liad  any  knowledge  of  this  event  before  the  last  moments.  Accord- 
ing to  Holsleu,  He  went  to  Jerusalem  full  of  hope,  designiug  to  pnach  there  as  well 
as  in  Galilee,  and  coutident,  in  case  of  need,  of  the  iiitei  position  of  God  and  of  the 
swords  of  His  adheieuls.  .  .  .  The  holy  Supper  itself  was  occasioned  simply  by  a 
passing  presentiment.  .  .  .  His  terrible  mistake  took  Jesus  by  surprise  at  the  last 
moment.  Keim  (ii.  p.  556)  acknowledges  that  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  authenticity 
of  the  scene  and  conversation  at  Cji;sarea  Philippi.  A'-cjrding  to  him,  Jesus  could 
not  have  failed  to  have  foreseen  His  violent  dealh  long  before  the  catastrophe  came. 
This  is  proved  by  the  bold  opposition  of  St.  Peter,  also  by  such  sayings  as  those 
referring  to  the  bridegroom  who  is  to  be  taken  away,  to  death  as  the  way  of  life 
(Luke  9  :  23,  24),  to  Jerusalem  whicii  kills  the  prophets  ;  lastly,  by  the  reply  to  the 
two  sons  of  Zebedee.  We  may  add  <J  :  31,  13  :  50  ;  .John  2  :  20,  3  :  14,  6  :  53,  12  :  7. 
24 — words  at  once  characteristic  and  inimitalile.  And  as  to  the  details  ot  this  predic- 
tion, have  we  not  a  number  of  facts  which  leave  no  room  for  douiit  as  to  the  super- 
nal ural  knowledge  of  Jesus  (22  :  10-34  ;  John  1  :  49,  4  :  18.  0  :  64,  etc.)  ?  What  tho 
modern  critics  more  generally  dispute,  is  the  announcement  of  the  resurrection.  But 
if  Jesus  foresaw  His  deatii.  He  must  have  equally  foresi^fu  His  resurrection,  as  cer- 
tainly as  a  prophet  believing  in  the  missiimof  Isiael  could  not  announce  the  cafitivily 
without  also  predicting  the  return.  And  who  would  ever  have  dreamed  of  pultiiiL' 
into  the  mouth  of  Je.sus  the  expression  three  days  and  three  nights  after  the  eveni, 
■when  in  acturd  fact  the  lime  spent  in  the  tomb  did  not  exceed  one  day  and  tw) 
nights?  It  is  asked  how  it  came  lo  pass  if  .Tesus,  had  so  exi)ri:'ssly  predictefl  His 
resurrection,  that  this  event  should  have  been  sucli  an  extraordinarv  surpri.se  to  his 
aposilvs?  There  we  have  a  psychological  problem,  wliich  the  disciples  themselves 
found  it  difficult  to  explain.  (I.jinp.  the  remarks  of  ihe  evangelists,  5  :  45,  IB  :  34, 
and  parallels,  which  can  only  have  come  from  the  apostles.  The  explanation  of  this 
problem  is  perhaps  this  :  the  aposlles  never  thought,  before  the  facts  had  opened 
theii  eyes,  that  the  expressions  death  and  resurrection  used  by  Jesus  should  be  taken 


266  COMIIENTARY    ON"   ST.  LUKE. 

literally.  Their  Master  so  commonly  spoke  in  figurative  language  that  up  to  the 
last  moment  they  only  saw  in  the  first  term  the  expression  of  a  siid  separation,  a  sud- 
den disappearance  ;  and  in  the  second,  only  a  sudden  return,  a  glorious  reappearing. 
And  even  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  they  in  no  way  thought  they  should  see  Him 
appear  again  in  His  old  form,  and  by  the  restoration  to  life  of  the  body  laid  in  ihe 
tomb.  If  they  expected  anything,  it  was  His  return  as  a  heavenly  king  (see  on 
23  :  43).  Luke  has  omitted  here  the  word  of  approval  and  the  severe  reprimand  which 
Jesus,  according  to  Matthew,  addressed  to  Peter  on  this  occasion.  If  any  one  is 
determined  to  see  in  this  omission  of  Luke's  a  wilful  suppression,  the  result  of  ill- 
will  toward  the  Apostle  Peter,  or  at  least  toward  the  Jewish  Christians  (Keim),  what 
will  he  say  of  i\Iark,  who,  while  omitting  the  words  of  praise,  expressly  refers  to 
tihose  of  censure  ? 

We  can  quite  understand  that  the  people  could  not  yet  bear  the  disclosure  of  a 
suffering  Messiah  ;  but  Jesus  might  make  them  participate  in  it  indirectly,  by  initia- 
ting them  into  the  practical  consequences  of  this  fact  for  His  true  disciples.  To  de- 
scribe the  moral  crucifixion  of  His  servants  vers.  23-27,  was  to  give  a  complete 
revelation  of  the  spirituality  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

3d.  Vers.  23-27.*  "  And  He  said  to  them  all.  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let 
him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow  me.  24.  For  whosoever 
will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it  ;  but  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake,  the  same 
shall  save  it.  25.  For  what  is  a  man  advantaged,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
lose  himself,  or  be  cast  away  ?  26.  For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me,  and  of  my 
words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed,  when  He  shall  come  in  His  own 
glory,  and  in  His  Father's  and  of  the  holy  angels.  27  But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth, 
there  be  some  standing  here,  which  shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  kingdom 
of  God."  The  preceding  conversation  had  taken  place  within  the  privacy  of  the 
apostolic  circle  (ver.  18).  The  following  words  are  addressed  to  all,  that  is  to  sa^',  to 
the  multitude,  which,  while  Jesus  was  praj'ing  with  His  disciples,  kept  at  a  distance. 
According  to  Mark,  Jesus  calls  them  to  Him  to  hear  the  instruction  which  follows. 
Hollzmann  maintains  that  this  to  all  of  Luke  must  have  been  taken  from  ]\[ark.  But 
why  could  not  the  same  remark,  if  it  resulted  froai  an  actual  fact,  be  reproduced  in 
two  different  forms,  in  two  independent  documents  ?  Jesus  here  represents  all  those 
who  attach  themselves  to  Ilim  under  the  figure  of  a  train  of  crucified  persons,  ver. 
23.  The  aor.  eWelv  of  the  T.  R.  means  :  make  in  general  part  of  my  following  ;  and 
the  present  ifixsoOai  in  the  Alex.  •  range  themselves  about  me  at  this  very  moment. 
The  figure  employed  is  that  of  a  journey,  which  agrees  with  their  actual  cin;um- 
stances  as  described  by  Maik  :  ev  rfi  otJijj.  The  man  who  has  made  up  his  miud  to 
set  out  on  a  journey,  has  first  of  all  to  say  farewell  ;  here  he  has  to  bid  adieu  to  his 
own  life,  to  deny  himself.  Next  there  is  luggage  to  carry  ;  in  this  case  it  is  tlie 
cross,  the  sufferings  and  reproach  which  never  fail  to  fall  on  him  who  pays  a  serious 
regard  to  holiness  of  life.  By  the  word  alpeiv,  to  take  vp,  to  burden  one's  self  with, 
Jesus  alludes  to  the  custom  of  making  criminals  carry  their  cross  to  the  place  of 
punishment.  Further,  there  is  in  this  term  the  idea  of  a  voluntary  and  cheerful 
acceptance.  Jesus  says  his  cross,  that  which  is  the  result  of  a  person's  own  character 
and  providential  position.     There  is  nothing  arbitrary  about  it  ;  it  is  given  from 

*  Yer.  23.  The  mss.  vary  between  eWeiv  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  spxEodai  (Alex.).  ^'"^. 
C.  D.  and  11  Mjj.  120  Mnn.  Itp'^'-'quo,  omit  kcO'  Tjfxepav,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  R. 
with  m  A.  B.  K.  L.  M.  R.  Z.  n.  Syr.  Vg.  Ver.  26.  D.  Syr'="^  It«'W.  omit  Xoyovg. 
Ver.  27.  !*.  B.  L.  X.,  avrov  instead  of  uds.     13  Mjj.,  oirtveg  instead  of  ol. 


CHAP.  IX.  :  23-27.  267 

above.  The  autheuticity  of  the  word  daily,  which  is  wanting  in  some  mss.,  cjinnot 
be  lioubted.  Hjid  it  bei-n  a  gloss,  it  would  have  been  inserted  in  Matthew  aud  Mark 
as  well.  This  voluntary  crucifixion  is  carried  on  every  day  to  a  certain  degree. 
Lastly,  after  having  taken  farewell  and  shouldered  his  burden,  he  must  set  out  on  his 
journey.  By  what  road  ?  By  that  which  the  steps  ot  his  Master  ha?e  marked  out. 
The  chart  of  the  true  disciple  directs  him  to  renounce  every  path  of  his  own  choos- 
ing, that  he  may  put  his  feet  into  the  print  of  his  leader's  footsteps.  Thus,  and  not 
by  arbitrary  mortifications  actuated  by  self-will,  is  the  death  of  self  completely 
accomplished.  The  term  follow,  therefore,  does  not  express  the  same  idea  as  come 
after  me,  at  the  beginning  ot  the  verse  ;  the  latter  would  denote  outward  adherence 
to  the  followers  of  Jesus.  The  other  refers  to  practical  fidelity  in  the  fulfilment  of 
(ho  consequences  of  this  engagement. 

The  24lh  verse  demonstrates  {for)  the  necessity  for  the  crucifixion  described,  ver. 
23.  "Without  this  death  to  self,  man  loses  himself  (24a)  ;  while  by  this  sacrifice  he 
saves  himself  (24J).  We  find  here  the  paradoxical  form  in  which  the  Hebrew  Mas- 
c^rtHoves  to  clothe  itself.  Either  of  the  two  ways  brings  the  just  man  to  the  anti- 
podes of  the  point  to  which  it  seemed  likely  to  lead  him.  This  profound  saying,  true 
even  for  man  in  his  innocence,  is  doubly  true  when  applied  to  man  as  a  sinner. 
'^vxv,  the  breath  of  life,  denotes  the  soul,  with  its  entire  system  of  instincts  and  natu- 
ral faculties.  This  psj'chical  life  is  unquestionably  good,  but  only  as  a  point  of  de- 
parture, and  as  a  means  of  acquiring  a  higher  life.  To  be  anxious  to  save  it,  to  seek 
to  preserve  it  as  it  is,  by  doing  nothing  but  rare  for  it,  and  seek  the  utmost  amount 
of  selt-gratification,  is  a  sure  way  of  losing  it  forever  ;  for  it  is  wanting  to  give 
stability  to  what  in  its  essence  is  but  transitory,  and  to  change  a  means  into  an  end. 
Even  iu  the  most  favorable  case,  the  natural  life  is  only  a  transient  flower,  which 
must  soon  fade.  That  it  may  be  preserved  from  dissolution,  we  must  consent  to 
lose  it,  by  surrendering  it  to  the  mortifying  and  regenerating  breath  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  who  transforms  it  into  a  higher  life,  and  imparts  to  it  an  eternal  value.  To 
keep  it,  therefore,  is  to  lose  both  it  and  the  higher  life  into  which,  as  the  blossom 
into  its  fruit,  it  should  have  been  transformed.  To  lose  it  is  to  gain  it,  first  of  all, 
under  the  higher  form  of  spiritual  life  ;  then,  some  day,  under  the  form  even  of 
natural  life,  with  all  its  legitimate  instincts  fully  satisfied.  Jesus  says,  "  for  my 
sake  ;"  And  in  Mark,  "  for  my  sake  awtZ  the  Gospel's."  It  is,  in  fact,  only  as  we 
give  ourselves  to  Christ  that  we  satisfy  this  profound  law  of  human  existence  ;  and 
it  is  only  by  the  gospel,  received  iu  faith,  that  we  can  contract  this  personal  relation- 
ship to  Christ.  Self  perishes  only  when  affixed  to  the  cross  of  Jesus,  and  the  divine 
breath,  which  imparts  the  new  life  to  man,  comes  to  him  from  Christ  alone.  No 
axiom  was  more  frequently  repeated  by  Jesus  ;  it  is,  as  it  were,  the  substance  of  hia 
moral  philosophy.  In  Luke  17  :  33  it  is  applied  to  the  time  of  the  Parousia  ;  it  is 
then,  in  fact,  that  it  will  be  fully  realized.  In  John  12  :  25  Jesus  makes  it  the  law 
of  his  own  existence  ;  in  Matt.  10  :  39  he  applies  it  to  the  apostolate. 

Vers.  25-27  are  the  confirmation  {for)  of  this  Maschal,  and  first  of  all,  vers.  25  and 
26,  of  the  first  proposition.  Jesus  supposes,  ver.  25,  the  act  of  saving  one's  men  life, 
accomplished  with  the  most  complete  success  .  .  .  amounting  to  a  gain  of  the 
whole  world.  But  in  this  very  moment  the  master  of  this  magnificent  domain  finds 
himself  condemned  to  perish  !  What  gain  I  To  draw  iu  a  lottery  a  gallery  of  pic- 
tures .  ,  .  and  at  the  same  time  to  become  blind  !  The  expression  q  :;r]/uuOei?,  or 
suffering  loss,  is  difficult.     In  Matthew  and  Mark  this  word,  completed  by  ^vx^v. 


X*Gft  rOMMEXTAltY    OX    ST,   LUKE. 

corresponds  to  aTroAeaaS  in  Luke  ;  but  in  Luke  it  must  express  a  different  idea.  We 
may  understand  witli  it  either  the  world  or  kavrov,  himself,  "  suffering  the  loss  of  this 
■world  already  gained,"  or  (which  is  more  natural)  "losing  himself  altogether 
(aTToAeuaS),  or  even  merely  sufTering  some  small  loss  in  his  own  person."  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  chastisement  should  amount  to  total  perdition  ;  the  smallest  injury 
to  the  human  personality  will  be  found  to  be  a  greater  evil  than  all  the  advantages 
accruing  from  the  possession  of  the  whole  world. 

The  losing  one's  self  [the  losss  of  the  personality]  mentioned  in  ver.  25  consists,  ac- 
cording to  ver,  26  (fo)-),  in  being  denied  by  Jesus  in  the  day  of  his  glory.  The  ex- 
pression, to  be  ashamed  of  Jesus,  might  be  applied  to  the  Jews,  because  fear  of  their 
rulers  hindered  them  from  declaring  themselves  for  him;  but  in  this  context  it  is 
more  natural  to  apply  it  to  disciples  whose  fidelity  gives  way  before  ridicule  or  vio- 
lence. The  Cantabrigiensis  omits  the  word  Aoyovi,  which  leads  to  the  sense : 
"ashamed  of  me  and  mine."  This  reading  would  reconmiend  itself  if  better 
supported,  and  if  the  word  Adyovi  {my  words)  was  not  confirmed  by  the  parallel  ex- 
pression of  Mark  (8  ;  85)  :  "  for  my  sake  and  the  gosjvVs."  The  glory  of  the  royal 
advent  of  Jesus  will  be,  fiist,  that  of  his  own  personal  appearing  ;  next,  the  glory  of 
God  ;  lastly,  the  glory  of  the  angels — all  tiiese  several  glories  will  be  mingled  to- 
gether in  the  incomparable  splendor  of  that  great  day  (2  Thess.  1  :  7-10).  "  Thus," 
says  Gess,  "  to  be  worthy  of  this  man  is  the  new  and  paramount  principle.  This  is 
no  mere  spiritualization  of  the  Mosaic  law  ;  it  is  a  revolution  in  the  religious  and 
moral  intuitions  of  mankind." 

Ver.  27  is  the  justification  of  the  promise  in  ver.  245  (find  his  life  by  losing  it),  as 
vers.  25  and  26  explained  the  threatening  of  24a.  It  forms  in  the  three  Syn.  the  con- 
clusion of  this  discourse,  and  the  transition  to  the  narrative  of  the  transfiguration; 
but  could  any  of  the  evangelists  have  applied  to  such  an  exceptional  and  transitory 
incident  this  express-ion  :  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  (Matthew),  or  of  God 
(]Mark  and  Luke)  ?  Meyer  thinks  that  this  saying  can  only  apply  to  the  Parousia,  to 
which  the  preceding  veise  referred,  and  which  was  believed  to  be  very  near.  But 
could  Jesus  have  labored  under  this  misconception  (see  the  refutation  of  this  opinion 
at  chap.  21)  ?  Or  has  the  meaning  of  his  words  been  altered  by  tradition  ?  The  lat- 
ter view  only  would  be  tenable.  Many,  urging  the  difference  between  Matthew's 
expression  (until  they  have  seen  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  His  kingdom)  and  that  of 
Mark  ("  .  .  .  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  fower')  or  of  Luke  ("  .  .  .  the 
kingdom  of  God")  think  that  the  notion  of  the  Parousia  has  been  designedly  erased 
from  the  text  of  Matthew  by  the  other  two,  because  they  wrote  after  the  fall  of  .Jeru- 
salem. Comp.  also  the  relation  between  Matt.  24,  where  the  confusion  of  the  two 
events  appears  evident,  and  Luke  21,  where  it  is  avoided.  But,  1.  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  this  confusion  is  found  in  Mark  (13)  exactly  the  same  as  in 
Matthew  (24).  Now,  if  Mark  had  corrected  Matthew  for  the  reason  alleged  in  the 
passage  before  us,  how  much  more  would  he  have  corrected  him  in  chap.  13,  where 
it  is  not  a  single  isolated  passage  that  is  in  question,  but  where  the  subject  of  the 
Parousia  is  the  chief  matter  of  discnurse  !  And  it  the  form  of  expression  in  Mark  is 
not  the  result  of  an  intentional  correction,  but  of  a  simple  difference  in  the  mode  of 
transmission,  why  might  it  not  be  the  same  also  with  the  very  similar  form  that  oc- 
curs in  Luke?  2.  There  is  a  very  marked  distinction  both  in  Mark  and  Luke,  a  soit 
of  gradnlion  and  antitliesis  between  this  saying  aud  the  preceding — in  Luke  by 
means  of  the  particle  c5f,  and  further  :  "  Aud  I  also  say  that  this  recompense  promised 


(.'II A 1'.    ix.  :  '^8-:iO.  ;3G9 

to  the  faithful  confessors  shall  be  enjoyed  by  some  of  you  before  you  die  ;"  and  in 
Mark,  in  a  still  more  striking  nuuiucr,  by  the  interruption  of  the  discourse  and  the 
commencement  of  a  new  phrase  :  "  And  He  naid  to  thon"  (9  :  1).  So  that  the  idea  of 
the  Parousia  must  be  set  aside  as  far  as  the  texts  of  Mark  and  Luke  are  concerned. 
It  may  even  be  doubted  whether  it  is  contained  in  Matthew's  expression  ;  comp. 
Matt.  2G  :  G4  :  "  Ilenaforth  [from  now]  ye  shall  see  the  ISon  of  man  cominr/  in  tlic 
clouds  of  heaven."  The  expression  henceforth  does  not  permit  of  our  tliinking  of 
the  Parousia.  But  this  saying  is  very  similar  to  the  one  before  us.  Others  apply 
this  promise  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  or  to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
amnug  the  heathen,  or  to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  inasmuch  as  these 
events  were  outward  facts,  and  all  who  were  contemporary  with  them  were  wit- 
nesses of  them,  we  cannot  by  this  reference  explam  nvii,  some,  which  announces  an 
exceptional  privilege.  After  all,  is  the  Lord's  meaning  so  diflicult  to  apprehend? 
Seeing  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  his  teaching,  is  a  spiritual  fact,  in  accordance  with  the 
inward  nature  of  the  kingdom  itself  ;  comp.  17  :  21  :  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within, 
you"  (see  the  explanation  ot  this  passage).  For  this  reason,  in  order  to  enjoy  this 
sight,  a  new  sense,  and  a  new  birth  are  needed  ;  John  3:3:  "  Except  a  man  be  bom 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  thought  satisfactorily  explains  tho 
present  promise  as  expressed  in  Luke  and  Mark.  To  explain  I^latthew's  expression, 
we  must  remember  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  pre-eminently  consists  in  giving 
us  a  lively  conviction  of  the  exaltation  and  heavenly  glory  of  Jesus  (John  10  :  14). 
The  Tivii,  some,  are  therefore  all  those  then  present  who  should  receive  the  Holy  Spirit 
at  Pentecost,  antl  behold  with  their  inward  eye  those  wonderful  works  of  God,  which 
Jesus  calls  his  kingdom,  or  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  this  way  is  explained  the  gra- 
dation from  ver.  26  to  ver.  27  inlNlark  and  Luke  :  "  Whoever  shall  give  his  own  life 
shall  find  it  airain,  not  only  at  the  end  of  time,  but  even  in  this  life  (at  Pentecost). "  If 
this  explanation  be  inadmissible,  it  must  be  conceded  that  this  promise  is  based  on  a 
confusion  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  with  the  Parousia  ;  and  this  would  be  a  proof  that 
our  Gospel  as  well  as  Matthew's  was  written  before  that  catastrophe.  'A/.tjOu^  must 
not  be  connected  with  Aeyu  :  Verily  1  say  to  you.  It  should  be  placed  before  the 
verb,  as  the  Q/u;>  is  in  the  two  other  Syn.  ;  and  Luke  more  generally  makes  use  of 
in-'  uh]fteiai  (three  times  in  the  Gospel,  twice  in  the  Acts).  It  must,  then,  belong  to 
iiolv  :  "  There  are  certainly  among  you."  The  Alex,  reading  avToi,  here,  must  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  received  reading,  i'^f,  which  is  taken  from  the  other  Syn. 

4.  The  Transfgu ration  :  9  :2S-3G.— There  is  but  one  allusion  to  this  event  in  the 
•whole  of  the  N.  T.  (2  Peter  1),  which  proves  that  it  has  no  immediate  connection 
with  the  work  of  salvation.  On  the  other  hand,  its  historical  reality  can  only  he 
satisfactorily  established  in  so  far  as  we  succeed  in  showing  in  u  reasonable  way  its 
place  in  the  course  of  the  life  and  development  of  Jesus.*  According  to  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  transfiguration  given  in  the  Syn.  (Malt.  17  :  1.  et  seq.  ;  Mark  9  :  2,  e<  seq.), 
we  distinguish  three  phases  in  this  scene  :  1*/.  The  personal  glorification  of  Jesus 
(vers.  28,  29)  ;  2d.  The  appearing  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  and  His  conversation  with  them 
(vers.  30-33)  ;  '6d.  The  interposition  of  God  Himself  (vers.  34-3G). 

*  No  one  seems  to  us  to  have  apprehended  the  real  and  profound  meaning  of  the 
transfiguration  so  well  as  Lange,  in  his  admirable  "  Vie  de  Jesus,"  a  book  the  defects 
of  which  have  unfortunately  been  much  more  noticed  tlian  its  rare  beauties.  Keini 
might  have  learned  more  from  him,  especially  in  the  study  of  this  incident. 


270  COMMENTAEY    ON   ST.  LUKE. 

1st.  Vers.  28,  29.*  The  Glory  of  Jesus.— The  three  narratives  show  that  there  was 
an  interval  of  a  week  between  the  transfiguration  and  the  first  announcement  of  the 
sufferings  of  Jesus,  with  this  slight  difference,  that  Matthew  and  Marii  say  six  days 
after,  while  Luke  says  about  eight  days  after.  It  is  a  very  simple  explanation  to  sup- 
pose that  Luke  employs  a  round  number,  as  indeed  the  limitation  oaei,  about,  indi- 
cates, while  the  others  give,  from  some  document,  the  exact  figure.  But  this 
explanation  is  too  simple  for  criticism.  "  Luke,"  says  Holtzmann,  "  affects  to  be  a 
better  chronologist  than  the  others.'*  And  for  this  reason,  forsooth,  he  substitutes 
eiglit  for  six  on  his  own  authority,  and  immediately,  from  some  qualm  of  conscience, 
corrects  himself  by  using  the  word  about!  To  such  puerlities  is  criticism  driven  by 
the  hypothesis  of  a  common  document.  The  Aramaean  constructions,  which  charac- 
terize the  style  of  Luke  in  this  passage,  and  which  are  not  found  in  the  two  other 
Syn.  {iyivETo  kuI  avsfiTi,  ver.  28  ;  h/evero  Elrrev,  ver.  33),  would  be  sufficient  to  prove 
that  he  follows  a  different  document  from  theirs.  The  nominative  v/uepaL  6kt6,  eight 
days,  is  the  subject  of  an  elliptical  phrase  which  forms  a  parenthesis  :  "  About  eight 
days  had  passed  away."  It  is  not  without  design  that  Luke  expressly  adds,  after 
tliese  sayings.  He  thereby  brings  out  the  moral  connection  between  this  event  and 
the  preceding  conversation.  We  might  think,  from  the  account  of  Matthew  and 
Mark,  that  in  taking  His  disciples  to  the  mountain,  Jesus  intended  to  be  transfig- 
ured before  them.  Luke  gives  us  to  understand  that  He  simply  wished  to  pray  with 
them.  Lange  thinks,  and  it  is  probable,  that  in  consequence  of  the  announcement  of 
His  approaching  sufferings,  deep  depression  hud  taken  possession  of  the  hearts  of  the 
Tv/elve.  They  had  spent  these  six  days,  respecting  which  the  sacred  records  pre- 
serve unbroken  silence,  in  a  gloomy  stupor.  Jesus  was  anxious  to  rouse  them  out  of 
a  feeling  which,  to  say  the  least,  was  quite  as  dangerous  as  the  enthusiastic  excite- 
ment which  had  followed  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves.  And  in  order  to  do  this 
He  had  recourse  to  prayer  ;  He  sought  to  strengthen  by  this  means  those  apostles 
especially  whose  moral  state  would  determine  the  disposition  of  their  colleagues. 
Knowing  well  by  experience  the  influence  a  sojourn  ujjon  some  height  has  upon  the 
soul — how  much  more  easily  in  such  a  place  it  collects  its  thoughts  and  recovers 
from  depression — He  leads  tliem  away  to  a  mountain.  The  art.  tu  denotes  the  moun- 
tain nearest  to  the  level  country  where  Jesus  then  was.  According  to  a  tradition,  of 
which  we  can  gather  no  positive  traces  earlier  than  the  fourth  century  (Cyril  of  Je- 
rusalem, Jerome),  the  mountain  in  question  was  Tabor,  a  lofty  cone,  situated  two 
leagues  to  the  south-east  of  Nazareth.  Perhaps  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  presents 
an  older  trace  of  this  opinion  in  the  words  which  it  attributes  to  Jesus  :  "  Then  my 
mother,  the  Holy  Spirit,  took  me  up  by  a  hair  of  my  head,  and  carried  me  to  the 
high  mountain  of  Tabor."  But  two  circumstances  are  against  the  truth  of  this  tradi- 
tion :  1.  Tabor  is  a  long  way  off  Csesarea  Philippi,  where  the  previous  conversation 
took  place.  Certainly,  in  the  intervening  six  days  Jesus  could  have  returned  even 
to  the  neighborhood  of  Tabor.  But  would  not  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  have  noticed 
the  journey  into  the  northern  country,  have  mentioned  this  return  ?  2.  The  summit 
of  Tabor  was  at  that  time,  as  Robinson  has  proved,  occupied  by  a  fortified  town, 
which  would  scarcely  agree  with  the  tranquillity  which  Jesus  sought.  We  think, 
therefore,  that  probably  the  choice  lies  between  Hermon  and  Mount  Panias,  from 

*  "Ver.  28.  J**  B.  H.  Syr.  It"""!,  omit  Kai  before  ivapaXajSuv.  The  Mss.  vary  between 
luavvjjv  Kai  laKufSov  and  laKuiSoP  kcl  Iuovvtjv, 


CHAP.   IX,  :  28-33.  271 

whose  snowy  summits,  visible  to  the  admiring  eye  in  all  the  northern  parts  of  the 
Holy  Liinil,  the  sources  of  the  JorcUin  are  coustautly  fed. 

The  strentjtheuing  of  the  faith  of  the  three  principal  apostles  was  the  object, 
therefore,  of  this  mountain  excursion  ;  the  glorification  of  Jesus  was  an  answer  to 
prayer,  and  the  means  employed  by  God  to  bring  about  the  desired  result.  The 
connection  between  the  prayer  of  Jesus  and  His  transfiguration  is  expressed  in  Luke 
by  the  prei>osition  fK,  which  denotes  more  than  a  mere  simultaneousness  (while  Ho 
prayed),  and  makes  His  prayer  the  cause  of  this  mysterious  event.  Elevated  feeling 
imparts  to  tlie  countenance  and  even  to  the  figure  of  the  entire  man  a  distinguished 
appearance.  Tiie  impulse  of  true  devotion,  the  enthusiasm  of  adoration,  illuniiue 
him.  And  when,  corresponding  with  this  state  of  soul,  there  is  a  positive  revelation 
on  the  part  of  God,  as  in  the  case  of  Moses  or  of  Stephen,  then,  indeed,  it  may  como 
to  pass  that  the  inward  illumination,  penetrating,  through  the  medium  of  the  soul, 
even  to  its  external  covering,  the  body,  may  produce  in  it  a  prelude,  as  it  were,  of 
its  future  glorification.  It  was  some  phenomenon  of  this  kind  that  was  produced  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  while  lie  was  praying.  Luke  describes  its  elTects  in  the  simplest 
manner  :  "  His  countenance  became  other."  How  can  Holtzmanu  maintain  that  in 
him  the  vision  is  "  a?sthetically  amplified."  His  expression  is  much  more  simple 
than  Mark's  :  "  He  was  transfigured  before  them,"  or  than  tliat  of  Matthew,  who  to 
these  words  of  Mark  adds,  "  and  his  countenance  shone  as  the  sun."  This  luminous 
appearance  possessed  the  body  of  Jesus  in  such  intensity  as  to  become  perceptible 
even  througli  His  garments.  Even  here  the  expression  of  Luke  is  very  simple  : 
"  His  garments  became  white  and  shining,"  and  contrasts  witii  the  stronger  expres- 
sions of  Mark  and  Matthew.  The  grandeur  of  the  recent  miracles  shows  us  that 
.Tesus  at  this  time  had  reached  the  zenith  of  His  powers.  As  everything  in 
His  life  was  in  perfect  harmony,  this  period  must  have  been  that  also  in  which 
He  reached  the  perfection  of  His  inward  development.  Having  reached  it,  what 
was  His  normal  future  ?  He  could  not  advance  ;  He  must  not  go  back.  From 
this  moment,  tlierefore,  earthly  existence  became  too  narrow  a  sphere  for  this 
perfected  personality.  There  only  remained  death  ;  but  death  is  the  offspring  of  the 
sinner,  or,  as  St.  Paul  says,  the  wages  of  sin  (Rom.  6  :  23).  For  the  sinless  man  the 
issue  of  life  is  not  the  sombre  passage  of  the  tomb  ;  rather  is  it  the  royal  road  of  a 
glorious  transformation.  Had  the  hour  of  this  glorification  struck  for  Jesus  ;  and 
was  His  transfiguration  the  beginning  of  the  heavenly  renewal  ?  This  is  Lange's 
thought  ;  it  somehow  brings  this  event  within  the  range  of  the  understanding.  Gess 
gives  expression  to  it  in  these  words  :  "  This  event  indicates  the  ripe  preparation  of 
Jesus  for  immediate  entrance  upon  eternity."  Had  not  Jesus  Himself  voluntarily 
suspended  the  change  which  was  on  the  point  of  being  wrought  in  Him,  this  moment 
would  have  become  the  moment  of  His  ascension, 

2d.  Vers.  30-33.  The  Appeariiiff  of  Moses  and  Elijah. — Not  only  do  we  sometimes 
see  the  eye  of  the  dying  lighted  up  with  celestial  brightness,  but  we  hear  him  con- 
versing with  the  dear  ones  who  have  gone  before  him  to  the  heavenly  home.  Through 
the  gate  which  is  opened  for  him,  heaven  and  earth  hold  fellowship.  In  the  same 
way,  at  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  heaven  comes  down  or  earth  rises.  The  two  spheres 
touch.  Keim  says  :  "  A  descent  of  heavenly  spirits  to  the  earth  has  no  warrant  either 
iu  the  ordinary  course  of  events  or  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament."  Gess  very 
properly  replies  :  "  Who  can  prove  that  the  appearing  of  these  heroes  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant was  in  contradiction  to  the  laws  of  the  upper  world  ?    We  had  far  better  confess 


273  COMMEXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

our  ignorance  of  those  laws."  Moses  and  Elijah  are  there,  talking  with  Him.  Luke 
does  not  name  them  at  first.  He  says  tico  men.  This  expression  reflects  the  im- 
pression which  must  have  been  experienced  by  the  eye-witnesses  of  the  scene.  They 
perceived,  first  of  all,  the  presence  of  two  persons  unlinown  ;  it  was  only  afterward 
that  tliey  knew  them  by  name.  'I(5ov,  behold,  expresses  the  suddenness  of  the  appari- 
tion. The  imperf.,  they  were  talking,  proves  that  the  conversation  had  already  lasted 
some  time  when  the  disciples  perceived  the  presence  of  these  strangers.  Ohivei  is 
emphatic:  who  were  no  other  than  .  .  .  Moses  and  Elijah  were  the  two  most 
zealous  and  powerful  servants  of  God  under  the  Old  Covenant.  Moreover,  both  of 
them  hud  a  privileged  end  :  Elijah,  by  his  ascension,  was  preserved  from  the  un- 
cloti)ing  of  death  ;  there  was  something  equally  mysterious  in  the  death  and  disap- 
pearance cf  Moses.  Their  appearing  upon  the  mountain  is  perhaps  connected  with 
the  exceptional  character  of  the  end  of  their  earthly  life.  But  how,  it  is  asked,  did 
the  apostles  know  them  ?  Perhaps  Jesus  addressed  them  by  name  in  the  course  of 
the  conversation,  or  indicated  who  they  were  in  a  way  that  admitted  of  no  mistake. 
Or,  indeed,  is  it  not  rather  true  that  the  glorified  bear  upon  their  form  the  impress  of 
their  individuality,  their  new  name  (Rev.  3  :  17)  ?  Could  we  behold  St.  John  or  St. 
Paul  in  their  heavenly  glorj''  for  any  length  of  time  without  giving  them  their  name  ? 

The  design  of  this  appearing  is  only  explained  to  us  by  Luke  :  "  Tliej'  talked," 
he  says  literally,  "  of  the  departure  which  Jesus  was  about  to  accomplish  at  Jerusa- 
lem." How  could  certain  theologians  imagine  that  Moses  and  Elijah  came  to  in- 
struct Jesus  respecting  His  approachiug  sufferings,  when  only  six  days  before  He 
had  Himself  informed  the  Twelve  about  them?  It  is  rather  the  two  heavenly  mes- 
sengers who  are  learning  of  Jesus,  as  the  apostles  were  six  da3'3  before,  unless  one 
imagines  that  they  talked  with  Him  on  a  footing  of  equality.  In  view  of  that  cross 
which  is  about  to  be  erected,  Elijah  learns  to  know  a  glory  superior  to  that  of  being 
taken  up  to  heaven — the  glory  of  renouncing,  through  love,  such  an  ascension,  and 
choosing  rather  a  painful  and  ignominious  death.  Moses  comprehends  that  there  is 
a  sublimer  end  than  that  of  dying,  according  to  the  fine  expression  which  the  Jewish 
doctors  apply  to  his  death,  "  from  the  kiss  of  the  Eternal  ;"  and  this  is  to  deliver  up 
one's  soul  to  the  fire  of  divine  wrath.  This  interview,  at  the  same  time,  gave  a  sanc- 
tion, in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  to  an  event  from  the  prospect  of  which  only  six 
days  before  they  shrank  in  terror.  The  term  i^odoq,  going  out,  employed  by  Luke,  is 
chosen  designedly  ;  for  it  contains,  at  the  same  time,  the  ideas  both  of  death  and 
ascension.  Ascension  was  as  much  the  natural  way  for  Jesus  as  death  is  for  us.  He 
might  ascend  with  the  two  who  talked  with  Him.  But  to  ascend  now  would  be  to 
ascend  without  us.  Down  below,  on  the  plain.  He  sees  mankind  crushed  beneath 
the  weight  of  sin  and  death.  Shall  He  abandon  them  ?  He  cannot  bring  Himself  to 
this.  He  cannot  ascend  unless  He  carry  them  with  Him  ;  and  in  order  to  do  this, 
He  now  braves  the  other  issue,  which  He  can  only  accomplish  at  Jerusalem. 
Ji'Arjpovv,  to  accomplish,  denotes  not  the  finishing  of  life  by  dying  (Bleek).  but  the 
completion  of  death  itself.  In  such  a  death  there  is  a  task  to  accomplish.  The  ex- 
pression, at  Jerusalem,  has  deep  tragedy  in  it  ;  at  Jerusalem,  that  city  which  has  the 
monopoly  of  the  murder  of  the  prophets  (13  :  38).  This  single  word  of  Luke's  on  the 
subject  of  the  conversation  throws  light  upon  the  scene,  and  we  can  appraise  at  its 
true  value  the  judgment  of  the  critics  (Meyer,  Holtzmann),  who  regard  it  as  nothing 
more  than  the  supposition  of  later  tradition  ? 

Further,  it  is  through  Luke  that  we  are  able  to  form  an  idea  of  the  true  state  of 


CHAP.  IX.  :  3;j-:i»;.  x'7;» 

the  disciples  clurin<;  this  srenc.  The  imperf.,  tJuy  talked,  ver.  80,  has  shown  us  that 
the  couversaliuu  hud  iilreiidy  lasted  some  time  when  the  disciples  perceived  the  pres- 
ence of  the  two  heavenly  persouages.  "We  must  infer  from  this  that  they  were 
asleep  dtiring  the  prayer  of  Jesus.  This  idea  is  confirmed  by  the  plus-peifcet  ;/oav 
(Seiicipriatvoi,  they  had  btcn  weighed  down,  ver.  33.  They  were  in  this  condition  durin;^ 
the  former  part  of  the  interview,  and  they  onlj-^  came  to  themselves  just  as  the  con- 
veisaliou  was  concluding.  The  term  6iaypT]yopnv  is  used  nowhere  else  iu  the  N.  T. 
la  profane  Greek,  wliere  it  is  very  little  used,  it  signifies  :  to  keep  awake.  Meyer 
would  give  it  this  meaning  here  :  "  persevering  in  keepmg  themselves  awake,  not- 
witlislanding  the  drowsiness  which  oppressed  them."  This  sense  is  not  inadmissi- 
ble ;  nevertheless,  the  <5e,  but,  which  denotes  an  opposition  to  this  state  of  slumber, 
rather  inclines  us  to  think  that  this  verb  denotes  their  return  h)  self-consciousness 
tlirougli  {i'ii'i)  a  momentary  slate  of  drowsiness.  Perhaps  we  should  regard  the  choice 
of  this  unusual  term  as  indicating  a  strange  state,  which  many  persons  have  experi- 
enced, when  the  soul,  after  having  sunk  to  gleep  in  prayer,  in  coming  to  itself,  no 
longer  finds  itself  in  the  midst  of  earthly  things,  but  feels  raised  to  a  higher  sphere, 
iu  which  it  receives  impressions  full  of  unspeakable  joy. 

Ver.  38  also  enables  us  to  see  the  true  meaning  of  Peter's  words  mentioned  in  the 
three  narratives.  It  was  the  moment,  Luke  tells  us,  when  the  two  heavenly  messen- 
gers were  preparing  to  part  from  the  Lord.  Peter,  wishing  to  detain  them,  ventures 
to  speak.  lie  offers  to  construct  a  shelter,  hoping  thereby  to  induce  them  to  prolong 
their  sojourn  here  below^  ;  as  if  it  were  the  fear  of  spending  the  niglit  in  the  open  air 
that  obliged  them  to  withdraw  !  This  enables  us  to  understand  Luke's  remark  (comp. 
also  llaik):  not  knoiriiKj  irliat  he  said.  This  characteristic  speech  was  stereotyped 
iu  the  tradition,  with  this  trifling  difference,  that  in  Matthew  Peter  calls  Jesus  Lord 
{Kvpie),  in  ^laik  Master  {pajijii),  iu  Lulie  Master  {iKiaTdrn).  And  it  is  imagined  that 
our  evaugtlists  amused  themselves  by  making  these  petty  changes  in  a  common  te.\t ! 

Sd.  Vers.  34-36.*  The  Divine  Voice. — Here  we  have  the  culminating  point  of  this 
scene.  As  the  last  sigh  of  the  dying  Christian  is  received  by  the  Lord,  who  comes  for 
him  (John  14  :  3  ;  Acts  7  :  55,  56),  so  the  presence  of  God  is  manifested  at  the  mo- 
ment of  the  glorification  of  Jesus.  The  cloud  is  no  ordinary  cloud  ;  it  is  the  veil  in 
which  God  invests  Himself  when  lie  appears  here  below.  We  meet  with  it  in  the 
desert  and  at  the  inauguration  of  the  temple  ;  we  shall  meet  with  it  again  at  the 
ascension.  Matthew  calls  it  a  bright  cloud  ;  nevertheless,  he  suys,  with  the  two  oth- 
ers, that  it  overshadowed  this  scene.  His  meaning  is,  that  the  brightness  of  the  cen- 
tral light  pierced  through  the  cloudy  covering  which  cast  its  mysterious  shadow  on 
the  scene.  If  with  the  T.  R.  we  read  tKEivovg,  only  Jesus,  Moses,  and  Elijah  were 
enveloped  in  the  cloud,  and  the  fear  felt  by  the  disciples  proceeded  from  uneasiness 
at  being  separated  from  their  Master.  But  if  with  the  Alex,  we  read  avrovi,  all  six 
were  enveloped  in  an  instant  by  the  cloud,  and  the  fear  which  seized  the  apostles  was 
caused  by  their  vivid  sense  of  the  divine  nearness.  The  former  meaning  is  more 
natural  ;  for  the  voice  coming  forth  out  of  the  cloud  could  scarcely  be  addressed  to 
any  but  persons  who  were  themselves  outside  the  cloud. 

*  Ver.  34.  i^.  B.  L.  some  IMnn.,  e-eoKini^ev  instead  of  eirtoKianEv.  ^.  B.  C.  Tv.  some 
Mnn.,  Eiie/.'jFiv  avrovi  instead  of  cKsivovi  tineA^imv,  whieii  is  tlie  reading  of  T.  \i.  with 
the  other  Mjj.  and  the  versions.  Ver.  3.").  !!*.  B.  L.  Z.  ("op.,  o  fKAt'/e^Mevui  instead  of 
o  ayn-Tirnr,  which  is  the  reading  of  T.  B.  with  ]y  Mjj.,  the  greater  part  of  the  Mun. 
Syr.  1l»'W. 


274  COMMENTARY    OK    ST.    LUKE. 

The  form  of  the  divine  declaration  is  very  nearly  the  same  in  the  three  accounts. 
The  Alex,  reading  in  Luke  :  tlds  is  my  Elect,  is  preferable  to  the  received  reading  : 
iJds  is  my  beloved  Son,  which  is  taken  either  from  the  tv?o  other  narratives,  or  from 
the  divine  salutation  at  the  baptism.  It  is  a  question  here  of  the  elect  in  an  absolute 
sense,  in  opposition  to  servants,  like  Moses  and  Elijah,  chosen  for  a  special  work. 
Corap.  23  :  35.  The  exhortation  :  Hear  Him,  is  the  repetition  of  that  by  which 
Moses,  Deut.  18  .  15,  charged  Israel  to  welcome  at  some  future  day  the  teaching  of 
the  Messiah.  This  last  word  indicates  the  design  of  the  whole  scene  :  "  Hear  Him, 
whatever  He  may  say  to  you  :  follow  in  His  path,  wherever  He  may  lead  you."  We 
have  only  to  call  to  mind  the  words  of  Peter  :  "  Be  it  far  from  thee.  Lord  !  this  shall 
not  be  unto  Thee,"  in  the  preceding  conversation,  to  feel  the  true  bearing  of  this 
divine  admonition.  We  find  here  again  the  realization  of  a  law  which  occurs 
throughout  the  life  of  Jesus  ;  it  is  this,  that  every  act  of  voluntary  humiliation  on  the 
part  of  the  Sun  is  met  by  a  corresponding  act  of  glorification,  of  which  He  is  the  ob- 
ject, on  the  part  of  the  Father.  He  goes  down  into  the  waters  of  the  Jordao,  devot- 
ing Himself  to  death  ;  God  addresses  Him  as  His  well-beloved  Son.  In  John  12,  in 
the  midst  of  the  trouble  of  His  soul.  He  renews  His  vow  to  be  faithful  unto  death  ; 
a  voice  from  heaven  answers  Him  with  the  most  magnificent  promise  for  His  filial 
heart. 

Matthew  mentions  here  the  feeling  of  fear  which  the  other  two  mention  earlier. 
The  word  :  Jeaus  only,  ver.  36,  is  common  to  the  three  narratives.  It  is  a  forcible 
expression  of  the  feeling  of  those  who  witnessed  the  scene  after  the  disappearing  of 
the  celestial  visitants  ;  see  on  2  :  15.  Does  it  contain  any  allusion  lo  the  idea  which 
has  been  made  the  very  soul  of  the  narrative  :  The  law  and  the  prophets  pass  away  ; 
Jesus  and  His  word  alone  remain  ?  To  me  it  appears  doubtful.  The  silence  kept  at 
first  by  the  apostles  is  accounted  for  in  Matthew  and  Mark  by  a  positive  command  of 
Jesus.  The  Lord's  intention,  doubtless,  was  to  prevent  the  carnal  excitement  which 
the  account  of  such  a  scene  might  produce  in  the  hearts  of  the  other  apostles  and  in 
the  minds  of  the  people.  After  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  there  would  no 
longer  be  anything  dangerous  in  the  account  of  the  transfiguration.  The  risen  One 
could  not  be  a  king  of  this  world.  Luke  does  not  mention  Jesus'  prohibition  ;  he 
had  no  reason  for  omitting  it,  had  he  known  of  it.  The  omission  of  the  following 
conversation  respecting  the  coming  of  Elijah  may  be  accounted  for,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  intentional.  This  idea  being  current  only  among  the  Jews,  Luke  might  not 
think  it  necessary  to  record  for  Gentile  readers  the  conversation  to  which  it  had  given 
rise.  Besides,  1  :  17  already  contained  a  summary  of  what  there  was  to  be  said  on 
this  subject.  This  entire  scene,  then,  in  each  of  its  phases,  conduced  to  the  object 
which  Jesus  had  in  view — the  strengthening  of  the  faith  of  His  own.  In  the  first, 
the  contemplation  of  His  glory  ;  in  the  second,  the  sanction  of  that  way  of  sorrow 
into  which  He  was  to  enter  and  take  them  with  Him  ;  in  the  third,  the  divine  ap- 
proval stamped  on  all  His  teaching  :  these  were  powerful  supports  for  the  faith  of 
the  three  principal  apostles,  which,  once  confirmed,  became,  apart  from  words,  the 
support  of  the  faith  of  their  weaker  fellow -disciples. 

The  objections  to  the  reality  of  the  transfiguration  are  :  1.  Its  magical  character 
and  uselessness  :  Why,  asks  Keim,  should  there  be  a  sign  from  heaven  on  this  grand 
scale,  when  Jesus  always  refused  to  grant  any  such  prodigy  !  But  nowhere,  per- 
haps, does  the  sound  reasonableness  of  the  gospel  come  out  more  clearly  tlian  in  this 
narrative  ;  glorification  is  as  much  the  normal  termination  of  a  holy  life,  as  death  is 


THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  275 

of  corrupt  life.  Tlic  design  with  which  this  mfinifestalion,  which  might  have  been 
concealcii  from  tlie  (liscnpics,  was  dispiiiyed  lo  llieni,  appears  from  its  connection 
Willi  tile  previous  conversation  respecting  llie  sufferings  of  llie  Messiaii.  2.  The  im- 
possibility of  tlie  reappearing  of  beings  who  have  long  been  dead  (see  on  ver.  30). 
8.  A  real  appearing  of  Elijah  would  be  an  actual  contradiction  to  the  following  con- 
versation (in  Matthew  and  Murk),  in  which  Jesus  denies  the  return  of  this  prophet  in 
person,  as  expected  by  the  rabbis  and  the  people.  These  are  the  arguments  of  Bleek 
and  Keini.  But  what  Jesus  denies  in  the  following  conversation  is  not  a  temporary 
appearance,  like  that  of  tlie  transfiguration,  but  Elijah's  return  to  life  on  earth  in 
order  to  fulfil  a  new  ministry.  This  is  what  John  the  Baptist  had  accomplished 
(1  :  17).  4.  The  silence  of  John,  who  must  have  conceived  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  in  a 
more  spiritual  manner.  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  this  objection  can  be  raised  by  the 
8arae  critic  who  blainas  John  for  the  magical  character  of  the  miracles  which  he 
relates,  and  denies  their  reality  for  this  reason?  The  transfiguration,  along  with 
many  other  incidents  (the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  the  institution  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  etc.),  is  omitted  by  John  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were  suffi- 
ciently known  througli  the  Syn.,  and  did  not  necessarily  enter  into  the  plan  of  his 
book.  5.  "  The  artiticiid  cliaracter  of  the  narrative  apiiears  from  its  resemblance  to 
certain  narratives  of  the  O.  T."  (Keini).  And  yet  this  very  Keim  disputes  the  reality 
of  the  appearing  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  on  the  ground  that  apparitions  of  the  dead  aro 
not  warranted  by  the  O.  T.  !  But  how  is  the  existence  of  our  three  narratives  to  Le 
explained?  Paulas  reduces  the  whole  to  a  natural  incident.  He  supposes  an  inter- 
view of  Jesus  with  two  unknown  friends  with  whom  He  had  made  an  appointment 
on  the  mountain.  The  refleclioa  of  the  rising  or  fcettiug  sun  on  the  snows  of  Her- 
mon,  foUowcii  by  a  sudden  clap  of  thunder,  occasioned  all  the  rest.  But  who  were 
those  secret  friends  more  closely  connected  with  Jesus  than  His  most  intimate  apos- 
tles ?  Tliis  explanation  only  results  in  making  this  scene  a  got-up  affair,  and  Jesus  a 
charlatan.  Il  is  abamlonecl  at  the  present  day.  Weisse,  Strauss,  and  Keim  regard 
the  tninsfiguratiju  as  nothing  but  an  invention  of  myliiical  oiigin,  designed  to  repre- 
sent the  moral  glory  of  Jesus  under  images  derived  from  the  history  of  Moses  and 
Elij  ill.  Bur  they  can  never  explain  how  the  Church  created  a  picture  so  complete  as 
this  out  of  fragments  of  O.  T.  narrative.  And  how  could  a  myliiical  narrative  occur 
in  the  mi  1st  of  sucli  precise  historical  notes  of  time  as  those  in  which  it  is  contained 
in  the  three  narrations  (six  or  eight  days  after  the  conversation  at  Cijesarea,  on  the  one 
hand  ;  the  eve  of  the  cure  of  the  lunatic  child,  on  the  other)?  And  Jesus'  strict  in- 
junction forbidding  His  apostles  to  publish  an  event  which  never  took  place  !  We 
must  pass  here,  as  everywhere  else,  from  the  mythical  theory  to  the  supposition  of 
imposture.  And  Peter's  absurd  speech — would  the  Church  have  been  likely  to  make 
its  founder  speak  after  this  fashion?  Lastly,  others  have  regarded  the  transfigura- 
tion simply  as  a  dream  of  Peter's.  But  did  the  two  other  apostles  have  the  same 
dream  at  the  same  time  ?  And  would  Jesus  have  attached  such  importance  to  a  dis- 
ciple's dream  as  to  have  strictly  prohibited  him  from  relating  it  until  after  His  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  ?  All  these  fruitless  attempts  prove  that  the  denial  of  the  fact 
has  also  iis  difficulties. 

From  innocence  to  holiness,  and  from  holiness  to  glory  ;  here  we  liave  the  normal 
development  of  human  existence,  its  royal  path.  The  tran.sfiguration,  at  the  culmi- 
nating point  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  shows  that  once  at  least  this  ideal  has  been  realized 
in  the  history  of  humanity. 

This  narrative  is  one  of  those  in  wdiich  Ave  can  mo-st  clearly  establish  the  origi- 
nality and  superiir  character  of  Luke's  sources  of  information.  Certainly,  he  has 
neither  derived  his  matter  from  the  two  other  evangelists,  nor  from  a  document  com- 
mon to  all  three.  This  is  evident  from  these  two  expressions  :  eight  daya  after,  and 
the  elect  of  God  (ver.  28  and  ver.  35).  The  details  by  which  Luke  determines  for  us 
tile  precise  object  of  this  scene,  and  the  subject  of  Jesus'  conversation  with  Moses 
and  Elijah,  as  well  as  the  picture  he  gives  of  the  state  of  the  disciples,  are  such  in- 
imitable touches,  and  are  so  suggestive  for  purposes  of  interpretation,  that  criticism 
must  renounce  its  mission  as  a  search  after  historic  truth,  or  else  decide  to  accord  to 
Luke  the  possession  of  independent  sources  of  information  closely  connected  with 
the  fact. 


276  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

The  transfiguration  is  the  end  and  seal  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  opening  of  the  history  of  the  passion  in  oiir  three  Gospels. 

5.  The  Cure  of  the  Lxinatic  Child  :  9:  37-43a. — The  following  narrative  is  closely 
connected  with  the  preceding  in  the  three  Syn.  (Malt.  17  :  14,  ct  seq.  ;  Mark  9  :  14, 
et  seq.).  There  was  a  moral  contrast  which  had  helped  tradition  to  keep  the  chrono- 
logical thread. 

Vers.  37-40.*  The  Request. — The  sleep  with  which  the  disciples  were  overcome, 
as  well  as  Peter's  offer  to  Jesus,  ver.  33,  appear  to  us  to  prove  that  the  transfiguration 
had  taken  place  eitiier  in  the  evening  or  during  the  night.  Jesus  and  Ilis  three 
companions  came  down  from  the  mountain  the  next  morning.  A  gieat  multitude 
awaited  them.  Nevertheless,  according  to  Mark,  tlie  arrival  of  Jesus  excited  a  feeling 
of  sui prise.  This  impression  might  be  attributed  to  a  lingering  reflection  of  glorj', 
which  still  illumined  His  person.  But  a  more  natural  explanation  of  it  is  the  violent 
scene  which  had  just  taken  place  before  all  this  crowd,  which  gave  a  peculiar  oppor- 
tuneness to  the  arrival  of  the  Master.  Matl:hew  omits  all  these  details,  and  goes 
straight  to  the  faot.  The  symptoms  of  the  malady,  rigidity,  foaming,  and  cries, 
shovi'  to  what  kind  of  physical  disorder  it  belonged  ;  it  was  a  specirs  of  epilepsy. 
But  the  42d  verse  and  the  conversation  following,  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  prove  that 
in  the  belie'f  of  Jesus  the  disorder  of  the  nervous  system  was  either  the  cause  or  the 
effect  of  a  mental  condition,  of  the  same  kind  as  those  of  which  we  have  already  had 
several  examples  (4  :  33,  et  seq.,  8  :  26,  et  seq.).  According  to  Matthew,  the  attacks 
were  of  a  periodical  character,  and  were  connected  with  the  pliases  of  the  moon 
{at7.r]VLdQETaL).  Maik  adds  three  items  to  the  description  of  the  malady  :  dumbness 
(in  the  expression  dumb  demon  there  is  a  confusion  of  the  cause  with  Ihe  effect  ; 
comp.  8  :  12,  13, 14,  23,  for  examples  of  similar  confusion),  grinding  of  the  teeth,  and 
wa.-<ling  away.     These  are  common  symptoms  in  epilepsy. 

The  disciples  had  foimd  themselves  powerless  to  deal  with  a  malady  so  deep- 
seated  (it  dated  from  the  young  man's  childhood,  Mark  5  :  22)  ;  and  the  presence  of 
certain  scribes  (see  Mark),  who  no  doubt  had  not  spared  their  sarcasm  either  against 
them  or  their  Master,  had  both  humiliated  and  exasperated  them.  The  expectation 
of  the  people  was  therefore  highly  excited.  What  a  contrast  for  Jesus  between  the 
hours  of  divine  peace  which  He  had  just  spent  in  communion  with  heaven,  and  the 
spectacle  of  the  distress  of  this  father,  and  of  the  various  passions  which  were  raging 
around  him  ! 

Vers.  41-43ffl.  TJie  Ansicer. — The  severe  exclamation  of  Jesus:  Faithless  and  fier- 
verse  generation,  etc.,  has  been  applied  to  the  disciples  (Meyer)  ;  to  the  scribes  (Cal- 
vin) ;  to  the  father  (Chrysostom,  Grotius,  Neauder,  De  Wette)  ;  to  the  people  (01s- 
hausen).  The  father  in  Mark  acknowledges  his  unbelief  ;  the  scribes  were  complettly 
under  the  power  of  this  disposition  ;  the  people  had  been  shaken  by  their  influence  ; 
lastly,  the  disciples — so  in  Matthew  Jesus  expressly  tells  them  when  the  scene  was 
over — had  been  defeated  in  this  case  by  their  want  of  faith.  All  these  various 
explanations,  therefore,  may  be  maintained.  And  the  expression,  yEvia,  generation, 
the  contemporary  race,  is  sufficiently  wide  to  comprehend  all  the  persons  present. 
After  enjoying  fellowship  with  celestial  beings,  Jesus  suddenly  finds  Himself  in  the 
midst  of  a  world  where  unbelief  prevails  in  all  its  various  degrees.    It  is  therefore  the 

*  Ver.  37.  !*.  B.  L.  S.  omit  ev  before  tt?  e£7?5.  Ver.  38.  The  mss.  are  divided 
between  enl3^E^paE  unA  einS'/.ETpov.  Ver.  39.  i*.  D.  some  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  add  koi  pr/caii 
before  Kat  a-aoaarsEL  (taken  from  Mark). 


CHAP.  IX.  :  37-43.  277 

contrast,  not  between  one  man  and  another,  but  between  this  entire  humiinily  alien- 
ated from  God,  in  the  midst  of  wldcli  He  liuds  Ilimstlf,  and  the  iiUiahiliiuta  of  lieavea 
whom  He  has  just  left,  which  wrings  from  Ilim  tliis  mournful  exclamation. 
Aiearpafifit t'7},  pervii'se,  an  expression  borrovvei  from  Dent.  32  :  5.  The  twice  repealed 
queslinu,  /u>w  long  .  .  . .?  is  also  explained  by  the  contrast  to  the  preceding  scene.  It 
is  not  an  expression  of  impatience.  The  scene  of  the  transtiguration  has  just  proved 
that  if  Jesus  is  still  upon  tiie  earth,  it  is  by  i/ts  own  free  tcill.  Tlie  term  suffer  you 
implies  as  much.  But  lie  feels  Himself  a  stranger  in  the  midst  of  this  unbelief,  and 
He  cannot  suppress  a  sigh  for  the  lime  when  His  filial  and  fraternal  heart  will  be  no 
longer  chilled  at  every  moment  by  exhibitions  of  feeling  opi)0.sed  to  His  most  cher- 
ished aspirations.  Tiie  holy  enjoyment  of  the  night  before  has,  as  it  were,  made 
Ilim  lumiesick.  Ilpoc  vfiCii,  among  you,  in  Luke  and  Matk,  expresses  a  more  active 
relation  than  fuO'  v/iuv,  with  you,  in  Matthew.  The  command  :  Bring  Ihy  son  hither, 
has  SDinelhiug  abrupt  in  il.  Jesus  seems  anxi  )U3  to  shake  off  tlie  pninful  feeling 
which  possesses  Him  ;  Ciunp.  a  similar  expressi^^a,  John  11  :  Z\. 

There  is  a  kind  cf  gradati(>n  in  the  three  narratives.  ]\Ialtliew,  without  mention- 
ing the  precedmg  attack,  merely  relates  the  cure  ;  tiie  essential  thing  for  him  is  the 
eonversatiou  of  Jesus  with  His  disciples  which  followed.  In  Luke,  the  narrative  of 
the  cure  is  preceded  by  a  desciiptiou  of  the  attack.  Lastly,  Mark,  in  describing  the 
attack,  relates  the  remarkable  conversation  which  Jesus  had  with  the  father  of  the 
child.  Tins  conversatijn,  wiiich  bears  the  highest  marks  of  authenticity,  neither 
allows  US  to  admit  tliat  Maik  drew  his  account  from  either  of  the  others,  or  that 
Ihey  had  his  narrative,  or  a  narrative  auylliing  like  his,  in  their  possession  ;  how 
could  Luke  especially  have  voluntarily  omitted  such  details? 

We  shall  ml  analyze  here  the  dialogue  in  Mark  in  which  Jesus  suddenly  changes 
the  qu'Sliou,  whether  He  has  ]>ovver  to  heal,  into  anolhtr,  wiiether  His  quesiii/iier 
has  p  )wer  to  hu-beve  ;  alter  wiiich,  the  latter,  terrified  al  the  itspcuisil'ility  llirowa 
up  m  him  l>y  tliis  turn  being  gi»en  to  the  questii  n,  iovokes  wilii  anguish  llie  power 
of  Jesus  to  help  his  faith,  which  ajjpeais  to  him  no  better  than  unbelief.  Nothing 
more  profound  or  exquisite  has  come  from  the  pen  of  any  evangelist,  ll  is  the  very 
piiotography  of  the  human  and  paternal  heart.  And  we  are  to  suppose  that  the  oilier 
evangelists  had  this  masterpiece  of  ^laik's  before  their  eyes,  and  mutilated  it  !  We 
find  these  two  incidents  in  Luke  mentioned  al.-o  in  the  raising  of  the  widow  of  N^aio's 
8  )n  :  an  on'y  .so/i  (ver.  38):  and  Ileganihim  to  his  father  (ver.  42).  "  They  belong 
to  Luke  s  manner,"  says  the  critic.  But  ought  not  theoiiginnl  and  chariictenstic 
delads  with  which  our  Gospel  is  full  to  inspire  a  little  more  confidence  in  his  naria- 
tives?  The  conversation  which  followed  this  miracle,  and  icliicli,  Luke  omits,  is  one 
of  the  passages  in  which  the  unbelief  of  the  apostles  is  most  severely  blamed.  This 
omissiiiu  do  's  not  prove,  at  any  lale,  that  the  sacred  writer  was  animated  with  that 
feeling  of  ill-will  toward  the  Twelve  which  criticism  imputes  to  him. 

6.   The  three  last  Incidents  of  Jesus'  Galilean  Ministry  :  9  ;  435-50. 

1st.  Tlie  8  cond  Announcement  of  the  Passio7i  :  vers.  ASb-iT).* — Wemay  infer  from 
the  two  other  Syu.  (Matt.  17  :  22,  23  ;  Mark  9  :  30-32),  more  especially  from  Mark, 
that  it  was  during  the  return  from  Csesarea  Philippi  to  Capernaum  that  Jesus  liad 
this  second  conversation  with  His  disciples  respecting  His  sufferings.  Luke  places 
it  in  connection  w  ith  the  state  of  excitement  into  which  the  minds  of  those  who  weie 
with  Jesus  had  been  thrown  by  the  preceding  miracles.  The  Lord  desires  to  sup- 
press this  dangerous  excitement  in  the  hearts  of  His  disciples.     And  we  can  under- 

*  Ver.  43.  The  Mss.  are  diridcd  between  t-on^o^v  (T.  R.)  and  eizoui  (Alex.). 


278  COMMENTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Stand,  therefore,  why  this  lime  Jesus  makes  no  mention  of  the  resurrection  (comp. 
1)  :  23).  By  the  pronoun  i;//ei5,  you.  He  distinguishes  the  apostles  from  the  multi- 
tude :  ''  You  who  ought  to  know  the  real  slate  of  things."  The  expression  (Jiabe  «r 
T(i  ura,  literally,  put  this  into  your  ears,  is  very  forcible.  "  If  even  you  do  not  under- 
stand it,  nevertheless  impress  it  on  your  memory  ;  keep  it  as  a  saying."  The  sayings 
which  they  are  thus  to  preserve,  are  those  which  are  summarized  in  this  very  44th 
Verse,  and  not,  as  Meyer  would  have  us  think,  the  euthusiastio  utterances  of  the 
people  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  ver.  43.  The  for  which  follows  is  not  opposed 
to  this  meaning,  which  is  the  only  natural  one  :  "  Remember  these  sayings  ;  for 
incredible  as  they  appear  to  you,  they  will  not  fail  to  be  realized."  The  term,  be 
delivered  into  the  hands  of  men,  refers  to  the  counsel  of  God,  and  not  to  the  treachery 
of  Judas.  They  can  know  very  little  of  the  influence  exercised  by  the  will  on  the 
reason  who  find  a  difficulty  in  the  want  of  understanding  shown  by  the  disciples  (ver. 
45).  The  prospect  which  Jesus  put  before  them  was  regarded  with  aversion  (Matt. 
5  :  23),  and  consequently  they  refused  to  pay  any  serious  attention  to  it,  or  even  to 
question  Jesus  about  it  (Mark  5  :  32).  Nothing  more  fully  accords  with  psycho- 
logical experience  than  tliis  moral  phenomenon  indicated  afresh  by  Luke.  The 
following  narrative  will  prove  its  reality'.  The  Iva,  in  order  that,  ver.  45,  does  not 
signify  simply,  so  that.  The  idea  of  purpose  implied  in  this  conjunction  refers  to  the 
providential  dispensation  which  permitted  this  blindness. 

2d.  The  question  :  Which  is  the  greatest  ?  vers.  46-48.* — This  incident  also  must 
belong,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  to  the  same  time  (Matt.  18  : 1,  et  seq.  ;  Mark 
9  :  33,  et  seq.).  According  to  Mark,  the  dispute  on  this  question  had  taken  place  on 
tTie  road,  during  their  return  from  Csesarea  to  Capernaum.  "  What  were  ye  talking 
about  by  the  way?'  Jesus  asked  them  after  their  arrival  (ver.  33)  ;  and  it  was  then 
that  the  following  scene  took  place  in  a  house,  which,  according  to  Matthew,  was 
probably  Peter's.  We  have  several  other  indications  of  a  serious  dispute  between 
the  disciples  happening  about  this  time  ;  for  example,  that  admonition  preserved  by 
Mark  at  the  end  of  the  discourse  spoken  by  Jesus  on  this  occasion  (9  :  50)  :  "  Have 
salt  in  yourselves,  and  be  at  peace  among  yourselves  ;"  then  there  is  the  instruction 
of  Jesus  on  the  conduct  to  be  pursued  in  the  case  of  offences  between  brethren,  Matt. 
18  :  15  :  "  If  thy  brother  sin  against  thee  .  .  .  ;"  lastly,  the  question  of  Peter  ; 
"  How  many  times  am  I  to  forgive  my  brother?"  and  the  answer  of  Jesus,  18  :  21, 
22.  All  these  sayings  belong  to  the  period  of  the  return  to  Capernaum,  and  are 
indications  of  a  serious  altercation  between  the  disciples.  According  to  the  highly 
dramatic  account  of  Mark,  it  is  Jesus  himself  who  takes  the  initiative,  and  who  ques- 
tions them  as  to  the  subject  of  their  dispute.  Shame-stricken,  like  guilty  children,  at 
first  they  are  silent ;  they  then  make  up  their  minds  to  avow  what  the  question  was 
about  which  they  had  quarrelled.  Each  had  put  forward  his  claims  to  the  first  place, 
and  depreciated  those  of  the  rest.  Peter  had  been  the  most  eager,  and,  perhaps,  the 
most  severely  handled.  We  see  how  superficial  was  the  impression  made  on  them  by 
the  announcement  of  their  Master's  sufferings.  Jesus  then  seated  Himself  (Mark 
5  :  35),  and  gathering  the  Twelve  about  Him,  gave  them  the  following  instruction. 
All  these  circumstances  are  omitted  by  Matthew.  In  his  concise  way  of  dealing 
with  facts,  contrary  to  all  moral  probability,  he  puts  the  question  :   Which  of  us  is  the 

*  Ver.  47.  i^.  B.  F.  K.  L.  IT.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  read  firfwS  instead  of  i^o>v.  B.  C. 
D.,  ■KaidLov  instead  of  Tzai,6i.ov.  Ver.  48.  !!^.  B.  C.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Itpi-s^q"',  eotlv 
instead  of  eaTai. 


ciiAi'.   IX.  :  io-oO.  279 

greatest  f  into  the  mouth  of  the  disciples  who  address  it  to  Jesus,  All  he  repards  as 
important  is  the  teaching  given  on  the  occasion.  As  to  Luke,  Bleek,  pressing  the 
words  kv  avroii,  in  thtm,  supposes  that,  according  to  him,  we  have  simply  to  do  witli 
llie  thoughts  which  had  arisen  in  the  iiearts  of  the  disciples  (comp.  ver.  47,  rF/g  unfiMai), 
and  nut  with  any  outward  ()uarrel.  But  tlie  term  tlaij/tie,  occnrred.  indicates  a  posi- 
tive fact,  just  such  as  tliat  ^larlc  so  graphically  descril)es  ;  and  the  expression  in  (hem, 
or  (unoiig  (hem,  applies  to  the  circle  of  llie  disciples  in  liie  midst  of  which  tiiis  discus- 
sion liad  taken  place.  Jesus  takes  a  cliild,  and  makes  him  the  subject  of  Ills  demon- 
stration. It  is  a  law  of  heaven,  that  the  feeblest  creature  here  below  shall  enjoy  the 
hirgest  measure  of  lieavenly  help  and  tenderness  (Matt.  18  :  10).  In  conformity  with 
this  law  of  heaven  Jesus  avows  a  peculiar  interest  in  children,  and  commends  them 
to  the  special  care  of  His  own  people.  Whoever  entering  into  His  views  receives 
them  as  such,  receives  Ilim.  He  receives  Jesus  as  the  riches  which  have  come  to  fill 
the  void  of  his  own  existence,  which  in  itself  is  so  poor,  and  in  Jesus,  God,  who,  as  a 
consequence  of  the  same  principle,  is  the  constant  complement  of  the  existence  of  Jesus 
(.John  G  :  57).  Consequently,  for  a  man  to  devote  himself  from  love  to  Jesus  to  the 
service  of  the  little  ones,  and  so  make  himself  tJic  lead,  is  to  be  on  the  road  toward 
possessing  God  most  completely,  and  becoming  (lie  grcated. 

The  meaning  of  Jesus'  words  in  31atthew  is  somewhat  dilTerent,  at  least  as  far  as 
concerns  the  first  part  of  the  answer.  Here  Jesus  lays  down  as  the  measure  of  true 
greatness,  not  a  tender  sympathy  for  the  little,  but  the  feeling  of  one's  own  littleness. 
The  child  set  in  the  midst  is  not  presented  to  the  disciples  as  one  in  wliom  they  are 
to  interest  themselves,  but  as  an  example  of  the  feeling  with  which  they  must  them- 
selves be  possessed.  It  is  an  invitation  to  return  to  their  infantine  humility  and 
simplicity,  rather  than  to  love  the  little  ones.  It  is  only  in  the  5th  verse  that 
Matthew  passes  from  this  idea,  by  a  natural  transition,  to  that  which  is  contained  in 
the  answer  of  Jesus  as  given  by  Luke  and  Mark.  It  is  probable  that  the  first  part  of 
the  answer  in  Matthew  is  borrowed  from  another  scene,  which  we  find  occurring  later 
in  Mark  (10  :  18-lG)  and  Luke  (18  :  15-17),  as  well  as  in  Matthew  himself  (19  :  13-15)  ; 
this  Gospel  combines  here,  as  usual,  in  a  single  discourse  elements  belongmg  to 
different  occasions.  Meyer  thinks  tliat  in  this  expression,  receive  in  my  name,  tlie  in 
my  name  refers  not  to  the  disposition  of  him  who  receives,  but  of  him  who  is  received, 
in  so  far  as  he  presents  himself  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  But  these  two  notions  :  present- 
ing one's  self  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (consciously  or  unconsciouslj').  and  being  received 
in  this  name,  cannot  be  opposed  one  to  the  other.  As  soon  as  the  welcome  takes 
place,  one  becomes  united  with  the  other.  The  Alex,  reading  icTi,  is,  is  more  spiiit- 
ual  than  the  Byz.  earaL,  sluill  be,  which  has  an  eschatological  meaning.  It  is  difficult 
to  decide  between  them. 

3fZ.  llie  Dissenting  Disciple  :  vers.  49  and  50.* — Onlj''  in  some  very  rare  cases 
does  John  play  an  active  part  in  the  Gospel  history.  But  he  appears  to  have  been  at 
this  time  in  a  state  of  great  excitement  ;  comp.  the  incident  which  immediately  fol- 
lows (9  :  54,  et  seq.),  and  another  a  little  later  (Matt.  20  :  20,  eUseq.).     He  had  no 

*  Ver.  49.  i^.  B.  L  X.  A.  Z.  some  Mnn.  read  ev  tcj  in  place  of  e-i  tu  (ev  perhaps 
taken  from  Mark),  it.  B.  L.  Z.  ll"'"i.,  eKD?.vofxev  instead  of  f/c«/t)cra/«i'.  Ver.  50.  C. 
I).  F.  L.  M.  Z.  add  nvrov  to  ^T}  KoAvere.  They  read  Kn6'  vuuv  and  vTrep  v/iuv  in  ^'^^  B. 
C.  D  K.  L.  M.  Z.  n.  several  Mnn.  It.  Syr.  ;  /caO'  vnuv  and  vTrfp  r]U(->v  in  it*  A.  X. 
A.  some  Mnn.  ;  and  KaV  rjuup  and  vireprjuuv  in  T.  R.,  according  to  it''»  E.  F.  G.  H.  S. 
U.  V.  r.  A.  and  most  of  the  Mnn. 


880  COMMEXTAllY   OX   ST.  LL'KE. 

doubt  been  one  of  the  principal  actors  in  the  incident  related  here  by  himself,  and 
"Which  might  very  easily  have  had  sume  counecliou  with  the  dispute  whicli  had  just 
been  goin^  on.  The  link  of  connection  is  more  simple  than  criticism  imagines.  The 
importance  which  .lesus  had  just  atlrii)iited  to  His  name  in  the  preceding  answer, 
makes  John  fear  that  he  has  viohited  by  his  rashness  the  majesty  of  this  august 
name.  When  once  in  the  Avay  of  confession,  he  feels  that  he  must  make  a  clean 
breast  of  it.  This  connection  is  indicated  by  the  terms  cnrnKpiOeis  (Luke)  and  anEKinOri 
(Mark).  Tins  incident,  placed  here  in  close  connection  with  the  preceding,  helps  us 
to  understand  some  parts  of  the  lengthened  discourse.  Matt.  18,  whicii  certainly 
belongs  to  this  period.  These  little  ones,  whom  care  must  be  taken  not  to  offend 
(ver.  G),  whom  the  good  shepherd  seeks  to  save  (vers.  11-13),  and  of  whom  not  one 
by  God's  will  shall  jierish  (ver.  14),  are  doubtless  beginners  in  the  faith,  such  as  he 
was  toward  whom  tlie  apostles  had  shown  such  intolerance.  Thus  it  very  often  hap- 
pens, that  by  bringing  together  separate  stones  scattered  about  in  our  three  narra- 
tives, we  succeed  in  reconstructing  large  portions  of  the  edifice,  and  then,  by  joining 
it  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  entire  building. 

Tlie  fact  here  mentioned  is  particularly  interesting.  "  We  see,"  as  Meyer  says, 
"  that  even  outside  the  circle  of  the  permanent  disciples  of  Jesus  there  were  men  in 
whom  His  word  and  His  works  had  called  forth  a  higher  and  miraculous  power  ; 
these  sparks,  which  fell  beyond  the  circle  of  His  disciples,  had  made  llames  burst 
forth  here  and  there  away  from  the  central  fire."  Was  it  desirable  to  extinguish 
these  fires?  It  was  a  delicate  question.  Such  men,  though  they  had  never  lived  in 
the  society  of  Jesus,  acquired  a  certain  authority,  and  might  use  it  to  disseminate 
error.  With  tiiis  legitimate  fear  on  the  part  of  the  Twelve  there  was  no  doubt 
mingled  a  reprehensible  feeling  of  jealousy.  They  no  longer  had  the  monopoly  of  the 
work  of  Christ.  Jesus  instantly  discerned  this  taint  of  evil  in  the  conduct  which 
they  had  just  pursued.  In  Luke,  as  in  Mark,  instead  of  the  aor.  eKu/.vao/iev,  we  for- 
bade Mm,  some  mss.  read  the  imperf.  iKuAvojiev  :  "  AVe  were  forbidding  him,  and 
thought  we  were  doing  right ;  were  we  deceived  ?"  Their  opposition  was  only  tenta- 
tive, inasmuch  as  Jesus  had  not  sanctioned  it.     This  is  the  preferable  reading. 

The  answer  of  Jesus  is  full  of  broad  and  exalted  feeling.  The  divine  powers 
which  emanate  from  Him  could  not  be  completely  contained  in  any  visible  society, 
not  even  in  that  of  the  Twelve.  The  fact  of  spiritual  union  with  Him  takes  pre- 
cedence of  social  communion  with  the  other  disciples.  So  far  from  treating  a  man 
who  makes  use  of  His  name  as  an  adversary,  he  must  rather  be  regarded,  even  in  his 
isolated  position,  as  a  useful  auxiliary.  Of  the  three  readings  offered  by  the  mss.  in 
ver.  50,  and  which  are  also  founrl  in  Mark  {ngaind  you— for  you  ;  against  you— for 
vs  ;  against  us— for  us),  it  appears  to  me  that  we  must  prefer  the  first  :  "  He  who  is 
not  against  you,  is,  for  you.  The  authority  of  the  Alex,  mss.,  which  read  in  this  way, 
is  confirmed  by  that  of  the  ancient  versions,  the  Italic  and  the  Pescliito,  and  still  more 
by  the  context.  The  person  of  Jesus  is  not  in  fact  involved  in  this  conflict— is  it  not 
in  His  name  that  the  man  acts  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  the  Twelve  who  are  con- 
cerned :  "he  followefh  not  witli  vs ;"  this  is  the  grievance  (ver.  49).  It  is  quite 
different  in  the  similar  and  apparently  contradictory  saying  (Luke  11  :  23  ;  Matt. 
12  :30) :  "  He  who  is  not  with  me,  is  against  me."  The  difference  between  these  two 
declarations  consists  in  this  :  in  the  second  case,  it  is  the  personal  honor  of  Jesus 
which  is  at  stake.  He  opposes  the  expulsions  of  demons,  which  He  effects,  to  those 
of  the  Jewish  exorcists.     These  latter  ar-pear  to  be  laboring  with  Him  against  a  com- 


CHAP.   IX.  :  50.  281 

mon  enemy,  but  renlly  tliey  are  strcngthcninc:  the  enemy.  In  the  application  ■which 
we  mii^ht  make  of  Ihese  nvixinis  at  the  present  day,  the  former  wonid  apply  to 
brethren  who,  wliile  separated  from  us  ecclesiastically,  are  fighting  with  us  tor  tlio 
cause  of  Christ  ;  while  the  latter  would  apply  to  men  who,  althuugh  belonging  to  the 
same  religious  society  as  ourselves,  arc  sapping  the  foundations  of  the  gospel.  Wo 
should  have  the  sense  to  regard  the  first  as  allies,  although  found  in  a  different  camp  ; 
the  others- as  enemies,  although  fouud  in  our  own  camp. 

3Iark  introduces  between  the  two  parts  of  this  reply  a  remarkable  saying,  the 
import  of  which  is,  that  no  one  need  fear  that  a  man  who  does  such  works  in  the 
uame  of  Jesus  will  readily  pass  over  to  the  ranks  of  those  who  speak  evil  of  Him, 
that  is  to  say,  of  those  who  accuse  Him  of  casting  out  devils  by  Beelzebub.  After 
having  invoked  the  name  of  .Jesus  in  working  a  cure,  to  bring  such  an  accusation 
against  Jesus  would  be  to  accuse  himself. 

Nowhere,  perhaps,  is  the  fitting  of  the  Syn.  one  into  the  other,  albeit  quite  unde- 
signed, more  remarkable,  lu  Matthew  tiie  words,  without  the  occasion  of  them  (the 
dispute  between  the  disciples)  ;  in  Luke  the  incident,  with  a  brief  saying  having 
reference  to  it  ;  in  j\Iark  the  incident,  with  some  very  graphic  and  much  more  cir- 
cumstantial details  than  in  Luke,  and  a  discourse  which  reseml>les  in  part  that  in 
Matthew,  but  differs  from  both  by  omissions  iind  additions  which  are  equally  impor- 
tant. Is  not  the  mutual  independence  of  the  three  traditional  narratives  oaluablv 
proved  2 


FOURTH    PART. 


JOUENEY  FEOM  GALILEE  TO  JERUSALEM. 


Chap.  9  :  51-19  :  28. 

A  GREAT  contrast  marks  the  sj'noptical  narrative  :  that  between  the  ministry  in 
Galilee  and  the  passion  week  at  Jerusalem.  According  to  Mnttbew  (19  : 1-20  :  34) 
and  3Iark  (chap.  10),  the  short  journey  from  Capernaum  to  Judea  Uirough  Perea 
forms  the  rapid  transition  between  those  two  parts  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  Notii- 
jng,  either  in  the  distance  between  the  places,  or  in  the  number  of  the  facts  related, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  this  journey  lasted  more  than  u  few  days.  This  wiD 
appear  from  the  following  table  : 


Matthew. 

Conversation  about  divorce. 

Presentation  of  the  children. 

Tiie  rich  young  man. 

Parable  of  the  laborers. 

Third  announcement  of   the 

passion. 

The  request  of  Zebedee's  aon.i. 

Cure  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho. 

Wanting. 

Id. 


Mark. 

Same  as  Matt. 
Id. 
Id. 

Wanting. 
Same  as  Matt. 

Id. 

Id. 

Wantinfj, 

Id. 


Ltjkk. 

Want  in  Of. 

Same  as  Matt. 

Id. 

Wantintr. 

Same  as  in  Matt. 

Wan  tin  OP. 
Same  as  ^Iatt. 

Zaccliaeiis. 

Parable  of  the 

pounds. 


Tlie  fourth  part  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  begins  at  9  :  51,  gives  us  a  very  differ- 
ent idea  of  what  transpired  at  that  period.  Here  we  find  the  description  of  a  slow  and 
lengthened  journey  acoss  the  southern  legions  of  Galilee,  which  border  on  Samaria. 
Jerusalem  is.  and  remains,  the  fixed  goal  of  the  journey  (ver.  51,  13  :  22,  17  :  11, 
etc.).  But  Jesus  proceeds  only  by  short  stages,  stopping  at  each  locality  to  preach 
tiie  gospel.  Luke  does  not  say  what  direction  lie  followed.  But  we  maj'  gather  it 
from  the  tirst  fact  related  by  him.  At  the  first  step  which  He  ventures  to  take  with 
His  followers  on  the  Samaritan  territory,  He  is  stopped  short  by  the  ill-will  excited 
against  Him  by  national  piejudice  ;  so  that  even  if  His  intention  had  been  to  repair 
directly  to  Jerusalem  through  Samaria  (which  we  do  not  believe  to  have  been  the 
case),  He  would  have  been  obliged  to  give  up  that  intention,  and  turn  eastward,  in 
order  to  take  the  other  route,  that  of  Perea.  Jesus  therefore  slov/ly  approached  the 
Jordan,  with  the  view  of  cros.sing  that  river  to  the  .south  of  the  lake  Gcnnesaret,  and 
of  continuing  His  journey  thereafter  through  Perea.  The  inference  thus  drawn  from 
me  nanative  of  Luke  is  positively  confirmed  by  [Matthew  (19  :  1)  and  Mark  (10  :  1;, 
uotn  oi  whom  indicate  the  Pereau  route  as  that  which  Jesus  followed  after  Hiii  de- 


284  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

parlure  from  Galilee.  In  this  way  the  three  synoptics  coincide  anew  from  Luke 
18  :  15  onward  ;  and  horn  the  moment  at  which  the  narrative  of  Luke  rejoins  the  two 
others,  we  have  to  rtga.'d  the  facts  related  by  him  as  having  passed  in  Perea.  This 
slow  ■journeying,  first  from  west  to  east  across  southern  Galilee,  then  from  north  to 
south  through  Perea,  the  description  of  which  fills  ten  whole  chanters,  that  is  to  say, 
mure  than  a  third  of  Luke's  narrative,  forms  in  this  Gospel  a  real  section  intermedi- 
ate between  the  two  others  (the  description  of  the  Galilean  ministry  and  that  of  the 
passion  \i.  cek) ;  it  is  a  third  group  of  narratives  coirespouding  in  importance  to  tlie 
two  others  so  abruptly  brought  into  juxtaposition  in  Marli  and  Matthew,  and  wliich 
softens  the  contrast  between  them. 

But  can  we  admit  with  certainty  the  historical  reality  of  this  evangelistic  journey 
in  southern  Galilee,  which  forms  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  the  third  Gos- 
pel ?    Many  modern  critics  refuse  to  regard  it  as  historical.     They  allege  : 

1.  The  entire  absence  of  any  analogous  account  in  Matthew  and  Mark.  Matthew, 
indeed,  relates  only  two  solitary  facts  (Matt.  8  :  10  et  seq.  and  12  ;  21  et  seq.)  of  all 
those  which  Luke  describes  in  the  ten  chapters  of  which  this  section  consists,  up  lo 
the  moment  when  the  three  narratives  again  become  parallel  (Luke  18  :  14) ;  Maiii, 
not  a  single  one. 

2.  The  visit  of  Jesus  to  Martha  and  Mary,  which  Luke  puts  in  this  journey 
(10  :  38-42),  can  have  taken  place  only  in  Judea,  at  Bethany  ;  likewise  the  saying, 
13  :  84,  35,  cannot  well  have  been  uttered  by  Jesus  elsewhere  than  at  Jerusalem  in 
the  temple  (Matt.  23  :  37-39).  Do  not  these  errors  of  lime  and  place  cast  a  more  than 
suspicious  light  on  the  narrative  of  the  entire  journe.y.  M.  Sabatier  himself,  who 
thoroughly  appreciates  the  important  bearing  of  this  narrative  in  Luke  on  the  har- 
monj'  of  the  four  Gospels,  nevertheless  goes  the  lengtli  of  saying  :  "  We  see  with 
how  many  contradictions  and  material  impossibilities  this  narrative  abounds."  * 

It  has  been  attempted  to  defend  Luke,  by  alleging  that  he  did  not  mean  to  relate  a 
journey,  and  that  this  section  was  only  a  collection  of  doctrinal  utterances  arranged 
in  the  order  of  their  subjects,  and  intended  to  show  the  marvellous  wisdom  of  Jesus. 
It  is  impossible  for  us  to  admit  this  explanation,  with  Luke's  own  words  befoie  us, 
which  express  and  recall  from  time  to  time  his  intention  of  describing  a  consecutive 
journey  :  9  :  51,  "  He 'steadfastly  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem  ;"  13  :  22,  "  He  wns 
going  through  the  cities  and  villages  .  .  .  journeying  toward  Jerusalem  ;"  17  :  11 
(lit.  trans.),  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  He  went  to  Jerusalem,  that  He  traversed  the 
country  between  Samaria  and  Galilee." 

Wieseler,  taking  up  an  entirely  opposite  point  of  view,  finds  in  those  three  pas- 
sages the  indications  of  as  many  individual  journeys,  which  he  connects  with  three 
journeys  to  Jerusalem  placed  by  John  almost  at  the  same  epoch.  It  is  hoyjed  in  this 
way  to  find  the  point  of  support  for  Luke's  narrative  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  is 
wanting  to  it  in  the  two  first.  The  departure  mentioned  9  :  51  would  correspond 
with  the  journey  of  Jesus,  John  7  : 1-10  :  39  (feast  of  Tabernacles  and  of  Dedication), 
a  journey  which  terminates  in  a  sojourn  in  Perea  (John  10  ;  40  et  seq.).  The  mention 
of  a  journey  13  :  22  would  refer  to  the  journey  from  Perea  to  Bethany  for  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  John  11,  after  which  Jesus  repairs  to  Ephraim.  Finally,  the  Dassa^e 
17  :  11  would  correspond  with  the  journey  from  Ephraim  to  Jerusalem  lor  tne  iMst 
Passover  (John  11  :  55).     It  would   be  necessary  to  admit  that  Jesus,  after  His 

*  "  Essai  sur  les  Sources  de  la  Vie  de  Jesus."  p.  29. 


CHAP.   IX.  :  51-xix.  :  :^<S.  285 

Ephraim  sojourn,  made  a  last  visit  to  Galilee,  proceeding  thither  through  Samariu 
(Wieseler  translates  Luke  17:11  as  in  E.  V.,  "through  the  niiilst  of  Samaria  and 
Galilee"),  then  that  He  returned  to  Judea  through  Perea  (Malt.  11)  ;  Mark  10). 

We  cannot  allow  that  this  view  has  the  least  probability.  1.  Those  three  pas- 
sages in  Luke  plainly  do  not  indicate,  in  his  mind  at  least,  three  diUercnt  departures 
and  journeys.  They  are  way-marks  set  up  by  the  author  on  the  route  nf  Jesus,  in 
the  account  of  this  unique  journej',  by  which  he  recalls  from  time  to  time  the  gen- 
eral situation  described  1)  :  51,  on  account  of  the  slowness  and  length  of  the  progress. 

2.  The  departure  (5) :  51)  took  place,  as  the  sending  of  the  seventy  disciples  proves, 
with  the  greatest  publicity  ;  it  is  not  therefore  identical  with  the  departure  (John 
7  : 1  etneq.),  which  took  place,  as  it  were,  in  secret  ;  Jesus  undoubtedly  did  not  then 
take  with  Him  more  than  one  or  two  of  llis  most  intimate  disciples.  3.  The  inter- 
pictatiou  which  "Wieseler  gives  of  17  :  11  appears  to  us  inadmissible  (see  the  passage). 
It  must  therefore  be  acknowledged,  not  only  that  Luke  meant  in  those  ten  chapters 
to  relate  a  journey,  but  that  he  meant  to  relate  one,  and  only  one. 

Others  think  that  he  intended  to  produce  in  the  minds  of  his  readers  the  idea  of  a 
conlinunus  journey,  but  that  this  is  a  framework  of  fiction  which  has  no  correspond- 
ing reality.  De  "Wette  and  Bleek  suppose  that,  after  having  finished  his  account  of 
the  Galilean  ministry,  Luke  still  possessed  a  host  of  important  materials,  without  any 
determinate  localities  or  dates,  and  that,  rather  thau  lose  them,  he  thouirht  good  to 
insert  them  here,  between  the  description  of  the  Galilean  ministry  and  that  of  the 
passion,  while  grouping  them  in  the  form  of  a  recorded  journey.  Hollzmann  takes 
for  granted  that  those  materials  were  nothing  else  than  the  contents  of  his  second 
principal  source,  the  Logia  of  Matthew,  which  Luke  has  placed  here,  after  employ- 
ing up  till  tills  point  his  fii'st  source,  the  original  ]Maik.  Weizsiicker,  who  thinks, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  Logia  of  JIatthew  are  almost  exactly  repi-oduced  in  the 
great  groups  of  discourses  which  the  first  contains,  sees  in  thrs  fourth  part  of  Luke  a 
collection  of  sajings  derived  by  him  from  those  great  discourses  of  Matthew,  and 
arranged  sj'^stematically  with  regard  to  the  principal  questions  which  were  agitated  iu 
the  apostolic  churches  (the  account  of  the  feast,  14  : 1-85,  alluding  to  the  Agapae) ; 
the  discourses,  15  :  1-17  ;  10,  to  questions  relative  to  the  admission  of  Gentiles,  etc.). 

Of  course,  according  to  those  three  points  of  view,  the  historical  introductions 
■with  which  Luke  prefaces  each  of  those  teachings  would  be  more  or  less  his  own  in- 
vention. He  deduces  them  himself  from  those  teachings,  as  we  might  do  at  the  present 
day.  As  to  the  rest,  Bleek  expressly  remarks  that  this  view  leaves  entirely  intact  the 
historical  truth  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  themselves.  We  shall  gather  up  in  the 
course  of  our  exegesis  the  data  which  can  enlighten  us  on  the  value  of  those  hj'polh- 
eses  ;  but  at  the  outset  we  must  offer  the  following  observations  :  1.  In  thus  invent- 
ing an  entire  phase  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  Luke  would  put  himself  in  contradic- 
tion to  the  programme  marked  out  (1  :  1-4).  where  he  affirms  that  he  has  endeavored 
to  reproduce  historical  truth  exactly.  2.  What  purpose  would  it  serve  knowingly  to 
enrich  tire  ministry  of  Jesus  with  a  fictitious  phase?  Would  it  not  have  been  much 
simpler  to  distribute  those  different  pieces  along  the  course  of  the  Galilean  ministry? 

3.  Does  a  conscientious  historian  play  thus  with  the  matter  of  which  he  treats,  espe- 
cially when  that  matter  forms  the  object  of  his  religious  faith  ?  If  Luke  had  really 
acted  in  this  way,  we  should  require,  with  Baur,  to  take  a  step  further,  and  ascrii)e 
to  this  fiction  a  mure  serious  intention— that  of  eslablishini;,  by  those  prolonged  rela- 
tions of  Jesus  to  the  Samaritans,  the  Pauline  universalism  ?    Thus  it  is  that  criti- 


286  COMMENTARY   ON    ST.  LUKE. 

cism,  logically  carried  out  ia  questions  rehiting  to  the  Gospels,  alwaj-s  lands  us  in 
this  dilemma — historical  truth  or  deliberate  imposture. 

The  historical  trulh  of  this  journey,  as  Lulcc  describes  it,  appears  to  us  evident 
from  the  following  facts  :  1.  Long  or  sliort,  a  journey  from  Galilee  to  Judeu  throuL'h 
Perea  must  have  taken  place  ;  so  much  is  established  by  the  narratives  of  Mailhew 
and  Mark,  and  indirectly  contirmcd  by  that  of  John,  when  he  mentions  a  sojouin  in 
Perea  precisely'  at  the  same  epoch  (10  :  40-42).  2.  The  duration  of  this  journey  must 
have  been  much  more  considerable  than  appears  from  a  hasl}^  glance  at  the  first  two 
synoptics.  How,  in  reality,  are  we  to  fill  the  six  or  seven  months  which  separated 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  7,  month  of  October)  from  that  of  the  Passover,  at 
which  Jesus  died  ?  The  few  accounts,  Matt.  19  and  20  (Mark  10),  cannot  cover  such 
a  gap.  Scarcely  is  there  wherewith  to  fill  up  the  space  of  a  week.  Where,  then, 
did  Jesus  pass  all  that  time?  And  what  did  lie  doV  It  is  usually  answered,  that 
from  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  that  of  the  Dedication  (December)  He  remained  in 
Judea.  Tliat  is  not  possible.  He  must  have  gone  to  Jerusalem  in  a  sort  of  incognito 
and  by  way  of  surprise,  in  order  to  appear  unexpectedly  in  that  city,  and  to  prevent 
the  police  measures  which  a  more  lengthened  sojourn  in  Judea  would  have  alloweil 
His  enemies  to  take  against  Him.  And  after  the  violent  scenes  related  Job  a 
7:1-10:21,  He  must  have  remained  peacefully  there  for  more  than  two  whole 
months  !  Such  an  idea  is  irreconcilable  with  the  situation  described  John  6  : 1  and 
7 : 1-13. 

Jesus  therefore,  immediately  after  rapidly  executing  that  journey,  returned  to 
Galilee.  This  return,  no  doubt,  is  not  mentioned  ;  but  no  more  is  that  which  fol- 
lowed John  5.  It  is  understood,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  so  long  as  a  new  scene 
of  action  is  not,  indicated  in  the  narrative,  the  old  one  continues.  After  the  stay  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  (John  10  :  23  et  seq.).  it  is  expressly  said  that 
Jesus  sojourned  in  Perea  (vers.  40-42)  ;  there  we  have  the  first  indication  appiising 
us  that  ilie  long  sojourn  in  Galilee  had  corae  to  an  end.  Immedialelj^  therefore, 
after  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  Jesus  returned  to  Galilee,  and  it  was  then  that  He 
definitely  bade  adieu  to  that  province,  and  set  out,  as  we  read  Luke  9  :  51,  to  ap- 
proach Jerusalem  slowly  and  while  preaching  the  gospel.  Xot  only  is  such  a  jour- 
uey  possible,  but  it  is  in  a  manner  forced  on  us  by  the  necessity  of  providing  con- 
tents for  that  blank  interval  in  the  ministry  of  .Jesus.  3.  The  indications  which 
Luke  supplies  respecting  the  scene  of  this  journey''  have  notliing  in  them  but  what  is 
exceedingly  probable.  After  His  first  visit  to  Nazareth,  Jesus  settled  at  Capernaum  ; 
He  made  it  His  own  cUy  (Matt.  9  : 1),  and  the  centre  of  His  excursions  (Luke  4  :  31 
et  seq  ).  Very  soon  He  considerably  extended  the  radius  of  His  journeys  on  the  side 
of  western  Galilee  (Nain  7  :  11;.  Then  He  quitted  His  Capernaum  residence,  and 
ccunmenced  a  ministry  purely  itinerant  (fi:l  et  seq.).  To  this  period  belong  His  first 
visit  to  Decapolis,  to  the  east  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  and  the  multiplication  of  the 
loaves,  to  the  north-east  of  that  sea.  Finallj'',  we  learn  from  Matthew  and  Mark 
that  Jesus  made  two  other  great  excursions  into  the  northern  regions — the  one  to  the 
north-west  toward  Phoenicia  (Luke's  great  lacuna),  the  other  toward  the  north-east,  to 
the  sources  of  the  Jordan  (Ceesarea  Philippi,  and  the  transfiguration).  To  accom- 
plish His  mission  toward  Galilee  there  thus  remained  to  be  visited  only  the  soutI)era 
parts  of  this  province  on  the  side  of  Samaria.  What  more  natural,  consequently, 
than  the  direction  which  He  followed  in  this  journey,  slowly  passing  over  that  south- 
ern part  of  Galilee  from  west  to  east  which  He  had  not  beforb  visited,  and  from 


CHAi'.    i\.  :  .M-xix.  :  •.>8.  287 

which  He  could  make  some  excursions  among  that  Samaritan  people,  at  whobc  hands 
lie  hail  found  so  eager  a  welcome  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  ? 

Regarding  the  visit  to  Martha  and  i\Iary,  and  the  saying  13  :  84,  35,  we  refer  to 
the  explauutiou  of  the  passages.  Perhaps  tlie  first  is  a  trace  (imconscious  on  the 
l)art  of  Luke)  of  Jesus'  siioit  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedication.  In 
any  case,  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  thus  found  to  form  the  narural  transition  between 
the  s}noptical  accounts  and  that  of  Jolm.  And  if  we  do  not  find  in  Luke  that  nnil- 
tipHcity  of  journeys  to  Jerusalem  which  forms  the  distinctive  feature  of  John's  Gos- 
pel, we  shall  at  least  meet  with  the  intermediate  type  of  a  ministry,  a  great  part  of 
which  (the  Galilean  work  once  finished)  assumes  the  form  of  a  prolonged  pilgrimage 
in  the  direction  of  Jerusalem. 

As  to  the  contents  of  the  ten  chapters  embraced  in  this  part  of  Luke,  they  are 
perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  situation.  Jesus  carries  along  with  Ilim  to  Judea  all 
the  following  of  devoted  believers  which  He  has  found  in  Galilee,  the  nucleus  of  His 
future  Church.  From  this  band  will  go  forth  the  army  of  evangelists  which,  with 
the  apostles  at  its  head,  will  shortly  enter  upon  the  conquest  of  the  world  in  His 
name.  To  prepare  them  as  thej'  travel  along  for  this  task — such  is  His  constant  aim. 
He  prosecutes  it  directly  in  two  ways  :  by  sending  them  on  a  mission  before  Him,  as 
formerly'  He  had  sent  the  Twelve,  and  making  them  serve,  as  these  had  done,  a  first 
ai)pienticeship  to  their  future  work  ;  then,  by  bringing  to  bear  on  them  the  chief 
part  of  His  instructions  respecting  that  emancipation  from  the  w^orld  and  its  goods 
which  was  to  be  the  distinctive  character  of  the  life  of  His  servants,  and  thus  gaining 
them  wholly  for  the  gnat  tiisU  which  He  allots  to  them.* 

What  are  the  sources  of  Luke  in  this  part  which  is  peculiar  to  him  ?  According 
t;)  Iloltzmann,  liUke  here  gives  us  the  contents  of  ^Matthew's  Logia,  excepting  the  in- 
troductions, which  he  adds  or  ilraplifies.  We  shall  examine  this  whole  hypothesis 
hereafter.  According  to  Schleieimacher,  this  narrative  is  the  result  of  the  combina- 
tion of  two  accounts  derived  from  the  journals  of  two  companions  of  Jesus,  the  one 
of  whom  took  part  in  the  journey  at  the  feast  of  Dedication,  the  other  in  that  of  the 
last  Passover.  Thus  he  explains  the  exactness  of  the  details,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  apparent  inexactness  with  wUich  a  visit  to  Bethany  is  found  recorded  in  the 
midst  of  a  series  of  scenes  in  Galilee.  According  to  this  view,  the  short  introduc- 
tions placed  as  headings  to  the  discourses  are  worthy  of  special  confidence.     But 

*  We  cannot  help  recalling  here  the  admirable  picture  which  Eiiseliius  draws  of 
the  body  of  evangelists  who,  under  Trajan,  continued  the  work  of  those  whom  Jesus 
had  trained  with  so  much  care  :  "  Alongside  of  him  ((Quadrat us)  there  fiourished  at 
liiat  time  many  other  successors  of  the  apostles,  who,  admirable  discip.les  of  those 
gieat  men,  reared  the  edifice  on  the  foundations  which  they  laid,  continuing  the 
work  of  prea(!iiing  the  gospel,  and  scattering  abundantly  over  the  wlmle  earth  the 
wliolesome  seed  of  tlie  heavenly  kmgdom.  For  a  very  large  number  of  His  disciples, 
carried  away  by  fervent  love  of  the  ti'ulh  which  the  divine  word  had  revealed  to 
them,  fulfilled  the  command  of  the  Saviour  to  divide  their  goods  among  the  poor. 
Then,  taking  leave  of  their  country,  they  filled  ihe  oflice  of  evangelists,  cov(  ting 
eagerly  to  preach  Christ,  and  to  carry  the  glad  tidings  of  God  to  those  who  had  not 
yet  hi  ard  the  word  of  faith.  And  afler  laying  the  foundations  of  the  faith  in  some 
remote  and  barbarous  countries,  establishing  pastors  among  them,  and  cnnfiiiiug  to 
them  the  care  of  those  young  settlements,  without  stni>ping  loiigr-r,  tiicv  hasted  on  to 
other  nations,  attended  bythe  grace  and  viitue  of  God"  (c'l.  Lu'innier.  iii.  y>S). 
Such  were  the  spiritual  children  of  those  whom  Jesus  had  equipped  on  this  journey, 
which  some  have  reckoned  an  invention  of  Luke. 


288  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

how  has  this  fusion  of  the  two  writings  whicli  has  merged  the  two  journeys  into  one 
been  brought  about  ?  Luke  cannot  have  produced  it  cunsciousl}'  ;  it  must  have  ex- 
isted in  his  sources.  The  difficulty  is  only  removed  a  stage.  How  was  it  possi))le 
for  the  two  accounts  of  different  journeys  to  be  fused  into  a  unique  whole  '!  As  far 
as  we  are  concerned,  all  that  we  believe  it  possible  to  say  regaiding  tlie  source  from 
which  Luke  drew  is,  that  the  document  must  have  been  either  Aramaic,  or  trans- 
lated from  Aramaic.  To  be  convinced  of  ihis,  we  need  only  lead  the  verse,  9  :  51, 
which  forms  the  heading  of  the  narrative. 

If  we  were  proceeding  on  the  relation  of  Luke  to  the  two  other  synoptics,  we 
should  divide  this  part  into  two  cycles — that  in  which  Luke  moves  alone 
(9  :  51-18  :  14),  and  that  in  which  he  moves  parallel  to  them  (18  :  15-19  :  27).  But 
that  division  has  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the  mind  of  the  author,  wiio  prol)a- 
bly  knows  neither  of  the  two  other  canonical  accounts.  He  himself  divides  his  nar- 
rative into  three  cycles  by  the  three  observations  with  which  he  marks  it  off  :  1st. 
9  :  51-13  :  21  (9  :  51,  the  resoiution  to  depart  ;  2d.  13  :  22-17  :  10  (13  :  22,  the  direction 
of  the  journey)  ;  3cl.  17  :  11-19  :  27  (17  :  11,  the  scene  of  the  journey),  buch,  then, 
will  be  our  division. 

FIRST  CYCLE.— CHAP.   9:51-13:21. 

The  Departure  from  Galilee. — First  Period  of  the  Journey. 

1.  Unfavorable  Beception  by  the  Samaritans:  9  :  51-56. — Ver.  51.  Introduction. — 
The  style  of  this  verse  is  peculiarly  impressive  and  solemn.     The  expressions  ejevero 

.  .  KQi  iaTrjpi^e  irpvacj-Tov  oTripii^Hv  betiay  an  Aramaic  original.  The  verb 
cvnTrATipoiJaOai,  to  be  fulfilled,  means  here,  as  in  Acts  2  . 1,  the  gradual  filling  up  of  a 
series  of  days  which  form  a  complete  period,  and  extend  to  a  goal  determined  befoie- 
hand  ;  comp.  TTATjaOr'/vai,  2  :  21,  22.  The  period  here  is  that  of  the  days  of  the  de- 
parting of  Jesus  from  this  world  ;  it  began  with  the  first  anuouocement  of  His  suf- 
feriugs,  and  it  had  now  reached  one  of  its  marked  epochs,  the  departure  from  Gali- 
lee. The  goal  is  the  avuXri^ii  the  perfectincj  of  Jesus  ;  this  expression  combines  the 
two  ideas  of  His  deatlr  and  ascension.  Those  two  events,  of  which  the  one  is  the 
complement  of  the  other,  form  together  the  consummation  of  His  return  to  the 
Father  ;  comp.  the  same  combination  of  ideas  in  vfuOr/vat  and  vndyeiv,  John  3  :  14, 
8  :  28,  12  :  32,  13  :  3.  For  the  pluial  ij/xepai,  Luke  1  :  21.  22.  Wieseler  (in  his  Synop- 
sis) formerly  gave  to  avdATj^Li  the  meaning  of  good  reception  :  "  When  the  time  of  the 
favorable  reception  which  He  had  found  in  Galilee  was  coming  to  an  end."  But  as 
this  meaning  would  evidently  require  some  such  definition  as  kv  Ta?u?.ala,  he  now  un- 
derstands by  v/j-sp.  ava'A.,  "  the  days  during  which  Jesus  should  have  been  received 
by  men"  ("  Beitriige,"  etc.,  p.  127  ei  seq.).  But  how  can  we  give  toa  substantive  the 
meaning  of  a  verb  in  the  conditional  ?  and  besides,  comp.  Acts  1  :  2,  whicli  fixes  tliR 
meaning  of  avdArifii.  On  the  other  hand,  when  Meyer  concludes  from  the  passiigo 
in  Acts  that  the  ascension  only  is  here  referred  to,  he  forgets  the  difference  of  con- 
text. In  Acts  1  this  meaning  is  evident,  the  death  being  already  a  past  event  ;  but 
here  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  two  events  yet  to  come,  by  which  the  departure 
of  Jesus  to  heaven  {ava/Lj]i}n(.)  was  to  be  consummated,  are  not  comprehended  in  this 
word.  The  pronoun  av-6i,  by  emphasizing  the  subject,  brings  into  prominence  the 
free  and  deliberate  character  of  this  departure.  On  the  kcu  of  the  apoilnsis,  see 
pp.  83,  84.      This  Kui  {and  He  also)  recalls  the  correspondence  between  the  divine 


riiAP.    IX.  :  52-56.  283 

decree  implied  in  tlic  term  nvfiirltjpovafiai,  to  he  fulfilkd,  and  the  free  will  witli 
vliifli  Jc'sus  conforms  thertto.  Tlie  phrase  TtiJocGonuv  Cnjpi'^Eiv  corresponds  in  the 
LXX.  to  ^i^r  CC  (•^^''■-  -^  '■  10)  or  C"':D  in;  (Ezik.  O  :  2),  drcsxermi  face  tern  (Oster- 
valti),  to  give  onus  view  an  iuvariable  ilireciiou  toward  an  end.  Tiie  expression  snp- 
poses  a  lear  to  be  snrmonntcd,  an  energy  to  be  disi)layed.  On  the  prepositional 
phrase  to  Jenimlcm,  comp.  1)  :  iJl  and  Mark  10  :  33  :  "  And  they  were  in  tlie  way  go- 
ing up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  Jesus  went  before  them  :  and  as  they  followed  they  were 
afraid."  To  slart  for  Jerusalem  is  to  march  to  His  death  ;  Jesus  linows  it  ;  the  dis- 
ciples have  a  preseutimeul  of  danger.     This  coutirms  our  interpretation  of  dvdXrjiju'i. 

Vers.  52-5G.*  I'he  Itefimd. — This  tentalive  message  of  Jesus  does  not  prove,  as 
Meyer  and  Bleek  think,  that  lie  had  the  intention  of  penetrating  farther  into  Sama- 
ria, and  of  going  directly  to  Jerusalem  in  that  way.  He  desired  to  do  a  woik  in  the 
north  of  that  province,  like  that  which  had  succeeded  so  admirably  in  the  south 
(John  4). 

The  sending  of  messengers  was  indispensable,  on  account  of  the  numerous  ret- 
inue which  accompanied  Him.  The  reading  nuXiv  (ver.  52),  though  less  supported, 
appears  to  us  preferable  to  the  reading  ku/utiv,  which  is  probably  taken  from  ver.  56. 
In  general,  the  Samaritans  put  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  Jews  travelling  through 
tlieir  country.  It  was  even  by  this  route,  according  to  Josephus,  that  the  Galileans 
usuidly  went  to  Jerusalem  ;  but  Samaritan  toleration  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  offer 
hospitality.  The  ami  of  Jesus  was  to  remove  the  wall  which  for  long  centuries  had 
separated  the  two  peoples.  The  Hebraism,  to  TcpodooTiuy  noijevoiiEvov  (ver.  53), 
CtS"1  CVi"}  (Ex.  33  ;  14  ;  2  Sam.  17  :  11),  proves  an  Aiamaic  document.  The  con- 
duct of  James  and  John  betrays  a  state  of  exaltation,  which  was  perhaps  still  due  to 
the  impression  produced  by  the  transfiguration  scene.  The  proposal  which  they 
make  to  Jesus  seems  to  be  related  to  the  recent  appearance  of  Elias.  This  lemark 
does  not  lose  its  truth,  even  if  the  words,  as  did  Elias,  which  several  Alex,  omit,  are 
not  autlientic 

Perhaps  this  addition  was  meant  to  extenuate  the  fault  of  the  disciples  ;  but  it 
may  also  have  been  left  out  to  prevent  the  rebuke  uf  Jesus  from  falling  on  the  proph- 
et, or  because  the  Gnostics  employed  this  passage  against  the  authority  of  the  O.  T. 
(Tertullian,  Adv.  JIarc.  iv.  23).  Tlie  most  natural  supposition  after  all  is,  that  the 
passage  is  an  explanatorj^  gloss.  Is  the  surname  of  sons  of  ihiinder,  given  by  Jtsus  to 
James  and  John,  to  be  dated  from  this  circumstance?  "We  think  not.  Jesus  would 
not  have  perpetuated  the  memory  of  a  fault  committed  by  His  two  beloved  (lisci[)les. 
The  phrase.  lie  turned  (ver.  55),  is  explained  by  the  fact  tiial  Jesus  was  walkii.g  at 
the  head  of  the  company.  A  great  many  Alex,  and  Byz.  mss.  agree  in  rejecting  the 
last  words  of  this  verse,  And  said.  Ye  know  not;  but  the  oldest  versions,  the  Itala 
and  Peschito,  confirm  its  authenticity  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  the  cause  ot  the  omis- 
sion is  nothing  else  than  the  confounding  of  the  words  KAl  EME  with  the  follo'ving 

*  Ver.  52.  !*.  F.  A.  24Mnn.  It.  Vir.  read  itoXtv  instead  of  xoourfv.  Yor.  54.  !*.  B. 
some  Mun.  r^mit  aurov  after  /nadr/rm.  ».  B.  L.  Z.  2  Mnn.  II""^.  Syl'•"^  omit  the 
words  &p?  xai  IlXtai  £ZoiT}6fv.  Ver.  55.  ».  A.  B.  C.  E.  G.  H.  L.  S.  V.  X.  A.  Z.  64 
Aliin  omit  the  words  xai  FiitEv  ovx  oidare  oiov  TtvEviiaroi  f6re  vi-UTi,  which  arc 
found  in  D.  F".  K.  M.  U.  V.  A.  n.  the  majority  of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  Iipi^wue.  Ver.  56. 
The  T.  R.  adds  at  the  beginning  of  the  vense  :  o  yap  vioi  rov  ai'f)pa)7tov  ovx  t/AOs 
il)vxai  ixt'OpooTCOjy  aTtoAfdcn  aXAa  6oo6ai,  following  F^'.  K.  ^I.  U.  T.  A.  11.  aliuo-t 
all  the  Mnn.  Syr.  IiP'^W"".     These  words  are  omitted  in  the  other  14  Mjj.  05  Muu. 


290  COiniEXTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

KAI  EIIopEvOTf.  They  may  be  understood  iu  three  ways  :  eit.her  interrogativel3% 
"  Know  ye  not  what  is  the  new  spiritual  reign  which  I  being  in,  and  of  wiiich  yuu 
are  to  be  the  instruments,  tlial  of  meekness'/"  or  affirmatively,  with  tbe  samu  sense, 
"  Ye  know  not  yet  .  .  ."  The  Ihiid  meaning  is  nmch  more  severe  :  "  Ye  know- 
not  (if  what  spirit  you  are  the  inslrumenls  when  speaking  thus  ;  you  think  that  you 
are  working  a  miracle  of  faith  in  my  service,  but  you  aie  obeying  a  spiiit  alien  from 
mine."  This  last  meaning,  which  is  that  of  St.  Augustine  and  of  Calvin,  is  more  iu 
keeping  with  the  expiession  tTtEri/xyiGev,  He  rebuked  them. 

The  following  words  (ver.  5t)),  For  the  ISon  of  man  is  not  come  to  destroy  men's  lives, 
bid  to  save  them,  are  wanting  in  the  same  authorities  as  the  precedmg,  and  in  the 
Cantabrigian  besides.  It  is  a  gloss  brought  in  from  19  ;  10  and  Matt.  18  :  11.  In 
these  words  there  are,  besides,  numerous  variations,  as  is  usual  in  interpolated  pas- 
sages. Here,  probably,  we  have  the  beginning  of  those  many  alterations  in  the  text 
which  are  remarked  in  this  piece.  The  copyists,  rendered  distrustful  by  the  first 
gloss,  seem  to  have  taken  the  liberty  of  making  arbitrary  corrections  in  the  rest  of 
the  passage.  The  suspicion  of  Gnostic  interpolations  may  have  equally  contributed 
to  the  same  result. 

Jesus  offered,  but  did  not  impose  Himself  (8  :  37)  ;  He  withdrew.  Was  the  other 
village  where  He  was  received  Jewish  or  Samaritan  ?  Jewish,  most  probably  ;  other- 
wise the  difference  of  treatment  experienced  in  two  villages  belonging  to  the  same 
people  would  have  been  more  expressly  emphasized. 

2.  The  Three  Discifles:  9:57-63. — Two  of  these  short  episodes  are  also  con- 
nected in  Matthew  (chap.  8)  ;  but  by  him  they  are  placed  at  the  time  when  Jesus  is 
setting  out  on  His  excursion  into  Decapolis.  Meyer  and  Weizsacker  prefer  the  situa- 
tion indicated  by  Matthew.  The  sequel  will  show  what  we  are  to  think  of  that 
opinion. 

\d.  Vers.  57  and  58.*  Luke  says,  a  certain  man ;  in  Matthew  it  is  a  scribe. 
Why  this  ditference,  if  they  follow  the  same  document?  The  homage  of  the  man 
breathed  a  blind  confidence  in  his  own  strength.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  a  call  to 
self-examination.  To  follow  such  a  Master  whithersoever  He  cjoeth,  more  is  needed 
than  a  good  resolution  ;  he  must  walk  in  the  way  of  self-mortification  (9  :  23). f  Tiie 
word  Haradxr/voodii  strictly  denotes  shelter  under  foliage,  as  opposed  to  holes  in  the 
earth.  Night  by  night  Jesus  received  from  the  hand  of  His  Father  a  resting-place, 
which  He  knew  not  in  the  morning  ;  the  beasts  were  better  off  in  respect  of  comfort. 
The  name  Son  of  man  is  employed  with  precision  here  to -bring  out  the  contrast 
between  the  Lord  of  creation  and  His  poorest  subjects.  This  offer  and  answer  are 
ceitainly  put  more  naturally  at  the  time  of  final  departure  from  Galilee,  than  at  the 
beginning  of  a  few  hours'  or  a  few  days'  excursion,  as  in  Matthew. 

2d.  Vers.  59,  60. |  Luke  says,  another  (individual)  ;  Matthew,  another  of  His 
disciples.  The  scribe  had  (jffered  himself  ;  this  latter  is  addressed  by  Jesus.  Luke 
alone  indicates  the  contrast  which  the  succeeding  conversation  explains.     Here  we 

*  Ver.  57.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  It»"<i.  omit  yvpie. 

f  The  following  is  M.  Renan's  commentary  on  this  saying  :  "  His  vagrant  life,  at 
first  full  of  cbarms  for  him,  began  to  weigh  heavily  on  liim"  ("  Vie  de  .Jesus."  13th 
ed.  p.  337).  Here  certainly  is  one  of  the  strnngest  liberties  with  the  history  of  Jes\is 
which  this  author  has  allowed  himself.  The  saying  breathes,  on  the  contrary,  the 
most  manly  cournffe. 

X  Ver.  59.  B   D.  V.  omit  uvpte. 


CHAP.   IX.  :  57,  08.  iJ91 

have  no  more  a  man  of  impulse,  presumptuous  and  without  self-distrust.  On  the 
contrary,  we  have  ti  characlur  rellectiiig  and  wary  even  to  excess.  Jesus  has  nioie 
conlidenee  in  him  than  in  the  fornur  ;  Ilelitiniulates  instead  of  corrtclnig  him. 
Could  the  answer  which  lie  gives  him  (ver.  (iO)  be  altogether  justified  in  the  situiiliou 
whieh  ^iallliew  indicates,  and  if  what  was  contemplated  was  only  a  short  expedition, 
in  which  this  man  without  inconvenience  could  have  taken  part?  In  the  position 
indicated  l)y  Luive,  the  whole  aspect  of  the  matter  changes.  The  Lord  is  setting  out, 
not  agaiii  to  return  ;  will  he  who  remains  behind  at  this  decisive  moment  ever  rejoin 
Him?  n'here  are  ciitical  periods  in  the  moral  life,  when  that  which  is  not  done  at 
the  moment  will  never  be  done,\  The  Spirit  blows  ;  its  action  over,  the  ship  will 
never  succeed  in  getting  out  of  port.  But,  it  is  said,  to  bury  a  father  is  a  sacred 
duty  ;  Jesus  has  no  right  to  set  aside  such  a  duty.  But  there  may  be  conflicting 
duties  ;  the  law  itself  provided  for  one,  in  cases  analogous  to  that  which  is  before  us. 
The  high  priest  and  the  Nazarites,  or  consecrated  ones,  were  not  to  pollute  themselves 
for  the  dead,  were  it  even  their  father  or  mother  (Lev.  21  :  11  ;  Num.  G  :  G,  7) ;  that  is 
to  say,  tliey  could  neither  touch  the  body  to  pay  it  the  last  duties,  nor  enter  the 
house  where  it  laj'  (Num.  19  :  14),  nor  take  part  in  the  funeral  meal  (Ilos.  9  :  4).  All 
that  Jesus  does  here  is  to  apply  the  moral  principle  implicitly  laid  down  by  the 
law — to  wit,  that  in  case  of  conllict,  spiritual  duty  takes  precedence  of  the  law  of 
'propriety.  If  his  country  be  attacked,  a  citizen  will  leave  his  father's  body  to  run 
to  the  frontier  ;  if  his  own  life  be  threatened,  the  most  devoted  son  will  take  to  flight, 
leaving  to  others  the  care  of  paying  the  last  honors  to  his  father's  remains.  Jesus 
calls  upon  this  man  to  do  for  the  life  of  his  soul  what  every  son  would  do  for  that  of 
his  body.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  pollution  contracted  by  the  presence  of 
a  dead  body  lasted  seven  days  (Num.  19  :  11-22).  "What  would  have  happened  to 
this  man  during  these  seven  daj's  ?  His  impressions  would  have  been  chilled. 
Already  Jesus  saw  him  plunged  anew  in  the  tide  of  his  ordinary  life,  lost  to  the  king- 
dom of  God.  There  was  needed  in  this  case  a  decision  like  that  which  Jesus  had 
just  taken  Himself  (ver.  ol).  ^ Arc eXO gov  (stnctly,  from  the  spot)  is  opposed  to  every 
desire  of  delay  ;  the  higher  mission,  the  spiritual  Nazariteship,  begins  immediately. 
From  the  word  dead,  on  the  double  meaning  of  which  the  answer  of  Jesus  turns, 
there  is  suggested  the  judgment  which  He  passed  on  human  nature  before  its  re- 
newal by  the  go.spel.  This  saying  is  parallel  to  that  other,  "  If  ye  who  are  evil 
.  .  ."  and  to  Paul's  declaration,  "  Ye  were  dead  in  your  sins  .  .  ."  (Eph.  2  : 1). 
The  command,  "Preach  the  kingdom  of  God,"  justifies,  by  the  sublimity  of  the 
object,  the  sacrifice  demanded.  The  Sta  in  Sidyx^^^^  indicates  difl'usion.  The 
mission  of  the  seventy  disciples,  which  immediately  follows,  sets  this  command  in  its 
true  light.  Jesus  had  a  place  for  this  man  to  fill  in  that  army  of  evangelists  which  He 
purposed  to  send  before  Him,  and  which  at  a  later  date  was  to  labor  in  changing  the 
aspect  of  the  world.  Everything  in  this  scene  is  explained  b}'  the  situation  in  which 
Luke  places  it.  Clement  of  Alexandria  relates  (Strom.  3  :  4)  that  the  name  of  this 
man  was  Philip.  In  any  case,  it  could  not  have  been  the  apostle  of  that  name  who 
liad  long  been  following  Jesus  (John  G)  ;  but  might  it  not  be  the  deacon  Philip,  who 
afterward  played  so  important  a  part  as  deacon  and  evangelist  in  the  primitive 
Church  ?  If  it  is  so,  we  can  understand  whj'-  Jesus  did  not  allow  such  a  prize  to 
escape  Him. 

M.  Vers.  Gl,  62.     This  third  instance  belongs  onlj'  to  Luke.     It  is,  as  it  were,  the 
synthesis  of  the  two  others.     This  man  offers  himself,  like  the  first  ;  and  yet  he  tern- 


292  COMMEXTAllY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

porizes  like  the  second.  The  word  aTrordddEdOm,  strictly,  to  leave  one's  place  in  the 
ranks,  rather  denotes  here  separiition  from  the  members  of  his  house,  than  renuncia- 
tion of  his  goods  (14:33).  The  preposition  £/?,  which  follows  toIS,  is  better  ex- 
plained by  taking  the  pronoun  in  the  masculine  sense.  There  are,  in  the  ansv/cr  of 
Jesus,  at  once  a  call  to  examine  himself,  and  a  summons  to  a  more  thorough  decision. 
The  figure  is  that  of  a  man  who,  while  engaged  in  labor  (aor.  Inifjokdv),  instead  of 
keeping  his  eye  on  the  furrow  which  he  is  drawing  (pres.  fiXeitoov),  looks  behind  at 
some  object  which  attracts  his  interest.  He  is  only  half  at  work,  and  half  work  only 
will  be  the  result  "What  will  come  of  the  divine  work  in  the  hands  of  a  man  who 
devotes  himself  to  it  with  a  heart  preoccupied  with  other  cares?  A  heroic  impulse, 
without  afterthought,  is  the  condition  of  Christian  service.  In  the  words,  fit  for  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  two  ideas  of  self-discipline  and  of  work  to  influence  others  are 
not  separated,  as  indeed  they  form  but  one.  This  summons  to  entire  renunciation  is 
much  more  naturally  explained  by  the  situation  of  Luke  than  by  that  of  Matthew. 

Those  three  events  had  evidently  been  joined  together  by  tradition,  on  account  of 
their  horaogeaeous  nature,  like  the  two  Sabbatic  scenes,  6:1-11.  They  were  ex- 
amples of  the  discriminating  wisdom  with  which  Jesus  treated  the  most  diverse  cases. 
Tliis  group  of  episodes  was  incorporated  by  the  evangelists  of  the  primitive  Church 
in  either  of  tlie  traditional  cj'cles  indifferently.  Accordingly,  in  Mattiiew  it  takes  its 
place  in  the  cycle  of  the  Gadareue  journey.  Luke,  more  exact  in  his  researches,  has 
undoubtedly  restored  it  to  its  true  historical  situation.  For  although  the  three  events 
did  not  occur  at  the  same  time,  as  might  appear  to  be  the  case  if  we  were  to  take  his 
narrative  literally,  all  the  three  nevertheless  belong  to  the  same  epoch,  that  of  the 
fiQal  departure  from  Galilee.  Holtzmann,  who  will  have  it  that  Matthew  and  Luke 
botti  borrowed  this  piece  from  the  Logia,  is  obliged  to  ask  why  Matthew  has  cut  off 
the  third  case?  His  answer  is  :  Matthew  imagined  that  this  third  personage  was  no 
other  than  the  rich  young  man  whose  history  he  reckoned  on  giving  later,  in  the  form 
in  which  he  found  it  in  tlie  other  common  source,  the  original  Mark.  Luke  had  not 
the  same  perspicacity  ;  and  hence  he  has  twice  related  the  same  fact  in  two  different 
forms.  But  the  rich  young  man  had  no  thought  of  asking  .Jesus  to  be  allowed  to 
follow  Him;  what  filled  his  mind  was  the  idea  of  some  work  to  be  done  which 
would  secure  his  salvation.  The  state  of  soul  and  the  conversation  are  wholly  differ- 
ent. At  all  events,  if  the  fact  was  the  same,  it  would  be  more  natural  to  allow  that 
it  had  taken  two  different  forms  in  the  tradition,  and  that  Luke,  not  having  the  same 
sources  as  Matthew,  reproduced  both  without  suspecting  their  identity. 

3.  2he  Sending  of  tlie  Seventy  Disciples :  10  : 1-24. — Though  Jesus  proceeded  slowly 
from  city  to  city,  and  from  village  to  village,  He  had  but  little  time  to  devote  to  each 
place.  It  was  therefore  of  great  moment  that  He  should  everywhere  find  His  arrival 
prepared  for,  minds  awakened,  hearts  expectant  of  His  visit.  This  precaution  was 
the  more  important,  because  this  first  visit  was  to  be  His  last.  Accordingly,  as  He 
had  sent  the  Twelve  into  the  northern  parts  of  Galilee  at  the  period  when  He  was 
visiting  them  for  the  last  time,  He  now  summons  a  more  numerous  body  of  His 
adherents  to  execute  a  similar  mission  in  the  southern  regions  of  the  province.  They 
thus  serve  under  His  eyes,  in  a  manner,  the  apprenticeship  to  their  future  calling. 
The  recital  of  this  mission  embraces — 1st,  The  Sending  (vers.  1-16) ;  2d,  The  Return 
(vers.  17-24).  The  essential  matter  always  is  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  in  which  His 
profoundest  emotions  find  expression. 

\st.   The  Sending,  vers.  1-16. — Ver.  1.*    The  Mission. — ^Avadeinvvjui,  to  put  in 

*  Ver.  1.  B.  L.  Z.  Syr^'^''.  omit  xm.  B.  D.  M.  Syr"'^  It^'"i.  Epiphanius.  Augus- 
tine, Recognit.  Clement.  :  E/iSofxrjKovvo  dvo.  B.  K.  n.  some  Mun.  Syr.,  Svo'Svo 
instead  of  5uo. 


CHAP.   X.  :  1-24.  293 

tieiD ;  ami  \\qt\cc,  to  cleH  nrxd  ini^tnU  {1  :  SO)  ;  hen-,  to  (Irsignntc.  The  v;o\A  instltuer 
(C'ranipon)  would  wrongly  give  a  pcrniaiient  cliuractcr  to  this  mission.  Schitier- 
niacliur  anil  Meyer  think  that  by  the  nal  erepovi,  others  atso,  Luke  alludes  lo  the 
ireuding  of  the  two  messengers  (9  :  .T3').  But  those  two  envoys  are  of  too  widely  dif- 
ffrcut  a  nature  to  ailniit  of  being  put  on  the  same  footing,  and  the  tiTm  «)'6'6'f/=f  k 
could  unt  be  applied  to  the  former.  The  solemn  instructions  which  follow  leave  no 
room  to  doubt,  that  by  the  others  also,  Luke  alludes  to  the  sending  of  the  Twelve. 
The  term  srefjov?,  others,  authorizes  the  view  that  the  Twelve  were  not  compre- 
hended in  this  second  mission  ;  Jesus  kept  them  at  this  time  by  His  side,  with  a  view 
to  their  peculiar  training  for  their  future  ministry. 

The  oscillation  which  prevails  in  the  Mss.  between  the  numbers  sevoiti/imd  seventy- 
two,  and  which  is  reproduced  in  ver.  17,  exists  equally  in  several  other  cases  where 
this  number  appears,  e.r/.  the  seventy  or  seventy-two  Alexandrine  translators  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  numbers  70  and  72  are  both  multi- 
ples of  numbers  very  frequently  used  in  sacred  symbolism — 7  times  10  and  G  times 
13.  The  authorities  are  in  favor  of  scventi/,  the  reading  in  particular  of  the  Sinu'iticus. 
Does  this  number  contain  an  allusion  to  that  of  tlie  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  (71, 
including  the  president) — a  number  which  appears  in  its  turn  to  correspond  with  that 
of  the  70  elders  chosen  by  Moses  (Num.  11  :  lG-25)  ?  In  this  case  it  would  be,  so  to 
.speak,  an  anti-Sanhedrim  which  Jesus  constituted,  as,  in  naming  the  Twelve,  He 
had  set  over  against  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  twelve  new  spiritual  patriarchs.  But 
there  is  another  explanation  of  the  number  which  seems  to  us  more  natuial.  The 
Jews  held,  agreeably  to  Gen.  10,  that  the  human  race  was  made  up  of  70  (or  72) 
peoples,  14  descended  from  Japhet,  30  from  Ham,  and  2G  from  Sliem.  This  idea, 
not  uncommon  in  the  writings  of  later  Judaism,  is  thus  expressed  in  the  "  Clemen- 
tine Recognitions"  (ii.  42)  :  "  God  divided  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  into  72  parts." 
If  the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  as  it  took  place  at  the  beginning,  had  more  particular 
relation  to  Christ's  mission  to  Israel,  the  sending  of  the  seventy,  carried  out  at  a  more 
advanced  epoch,  when  the  imbelief  of  the  people  was  assuming  a  fixed  form, 
announced  and  prepared  for  tlie  extension  of  preaching  throughout  the  whole  earth. 
Jesus  sent  them  two  and  two  ;  the  gifts  of  the  one  were  to  complete  those  of  the 
other.  Besides,  did  not  the  legal  adage  say.  In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  wittiessea 
shall  every  icord  he  established?  Lange  translates  ou  e^EXXsv,  "where  He  should 
have  come,"  as  if  the  end  of  the  visit  made  by  the  seventy  had  been  to  make  up  for 
that  for  which  Jesus  had  not  time.  This  meaning  is  opposed  to  the  text,  and  partic- 
ularlj'  to  the  words  before  Ilim. 

Vers.  2-16.  The  Discourse. — It  falls  into  two  parts :  Instructions  for  the  mission 
(vers.  2-12),  and  warnings  to  the  cities  of  Galilee  (vers.  13-16). 

The  instructions  first  explain  the  reason  of  this  mission  (ver.  2)  ;  then  the  conduct 
to  be  observed  on  setting  out  and  during  the  journey  (vers.  3,  4),  at  the  time  of  arri- 
val (vers.  5,  6)  ;  during  their  sojourn  in  the  case  of  a  favorable  reception  (vers.  7-9) ; 
finally,  on  their  departure  in  the  case  of  rejection  (vers.  10-12). 

Ver.  2.*  "  Therefore  said  He  unto  them.  The  harvest  truly  is  great,  but  the  labor- 
ers are  few  ;  praj''  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  He  would  send  forth 
laborers  into  His  harvest."  Matthew  has  this  utterance  in  chap.  9,  in  presence  of 
the  Galilean  multitudes,  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  sending  of  the  Twelve.     Bleek 

*  Ver.  2.     Instead  of  ow,  ».  B.  C.  D.  L.  Z.  some  :Mnn.  Il''''i.  read  5e. 


294  COMMENTAEY    0]S'   ST.  LUKE. 

himself  acknowledges  that  it  is  better  placed  by  Luke.  "  The  field  is  the  world," 
Jesus  had  said  in  the  parable  of  the  sower.  It  is  to  this  vast  domain  that  the  very 
strong  words  of  this  verse  naturally  apply,  recalling  the  siuilar  words,  John  4  :  35  : 
"  Look  on  the  fields,  for  they  are  white  already  to  harvest,"  uttered  in  Samaria,  and 
on  tlie  threshold,  as  it  were,  of  the  Gentile  world.  The  sending  of  the  new  laborers 
is  the  fruit  of  the  prayers  of  their  predecessors.  The  prep,  ek  in  kxliaXXEiv,  thrust 
forth,  may'sigaify,  forth  from  the  Father's  house,  from  heaven,  whence  real  callings 
issue  ;  or,  forth  from  the  Holy  Land,  whence  the  evangelization  of  the  Gentiles  was 
to  proceed.     Following  on  the  idea  of  prayer,  the  first  meaning  is  the  more  natural. 

Vers.  3,  4.*  "  Go  your  ways  ;  behold,  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  among  wolves. 
Carry  neither  purse,  nor  scrip,  nor  shoes  :  and  salute  no  man  by  the  way."  They 
are  to  set  out  just  as  they  are,  weak  and  utterly  unprovided.  The  first  characteristic 
of  the  messengers  of  Jesus  is  confidence.  Jesus,  who  gives  them  their  mission  {kyoa 
is  certainly  authentic),  charges  Himself  with  the  task  of  defending  them  and  of  pro- 
viding for  their  wants.  'Titodrjuara,  change  of  sandals  ;  this  is  proved  by  the  verb 
/3adrdZEty,  to  carry  a  burden.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  the  object  of  the  last 
words.  Are  they  meant  to  indicate  haste,  as  in  2  Kings  4  :  29  ?  But  the  journey  of 
Jesus  Himself  has  nothmg  hurried  about  it.  Does  He  mean  to  forbid  them,  as  some 
have  thought,  to  seek  the  favor  of  men  ?  But  the  words  by  tJw  way  would  be  super- 
fluous. Jesus  rather  means  that  they  must  travel  like  men  absorbed  by  one  supreme 
interest,  which  will  uot  permit  them  to  lose  their  time  in  idle  ceremonies.  It  is  well 
known  how  complicated  and  tedious  Eastern  salutations  are.  The  domestic  hearth  is 
the  place  where  they  are  to  deliver  their  message.  A  tranquillity  regins  there  which 
is  appropriate  to  so  serious  a  subject.  The  following  verses  readily  fall  in  with  this 
idea. 

yers.  5,  6.f  "  And  into  whatsoever  house  ye  enter,  first  say,  Peace  be  to  this 
house.  And  if  the  {a)  son  of  peace  be  there,  your  peace  shall  rest  upon  it ;  if  not,  it 
shall  turn  to  you  again."  The  pres.  Ei6Epxr}60e  (Byz.)  expresses  better  than  the  aor. 
(Alex.)  that  the  entrance  and  the  salutation  are  sinmltaneous.  The  prevailing  im- 
pulse, in  the  servant  of  Christ,  is  the  desire  of  communicating  the  peace  with  which 
he  himself  is  filled  [his  peace  ver.  6).  If  the  article  before  vioi — "  the  son  of  peace" 
— were  authentic  (T.  R.),  it  would  designate  the  individual  as  the  object  of  a  special 
divine  decree,  which  is  far-fetched.  The  phrase,  son  of  peace,  is  a  Hebraism.  In 
this  connection  it  represents  the  notion  of  peace  as  an  actual  force  which  comes  to 
life  in  the  individual.  The  reading  of  the  two  most  ancient  mss.,  ETTavaTrarjdsrai, 
is  regular  (aor.  pass.  ETtdrjv).  If  no  soul  is  found  there  fitted  to  receive  the  influence 
of  the  gospel  salutation,  it  will  not  on  that  account  be  without  efficacy  ;  it  wfll  return 
with  redoubled  force,  as  it  were,  on  him  who  uttered  it. 

Vers.  1-%.X  "  And  in  the  same  house  remain,  eating  and  drinking  such  things 
as  they  give  :  for  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  Go  not  from  house  to  house. 
8.  And  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter,  and  they  receive  you,  eat  such  things  as  are  set 
before  you  :  9.  And  heal  the  sick  that  are  therein,  and  say  unto  them,  The  kingdom 

*  Ver.  8.  i*.  A.  B.  omit  Eyco  after  i8ov.  Ver.  4.  2*.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  several  Mnn.  fxr/ 
instead  of  m]dE. 

f  Ver.  5.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  Ei6Epxr]60E  (T.  R.)  and  Ei6EX0rjTE  (Alex.). 
Ver.  G.  T.  R.  reads  o  before  vio'i,  with  i>.  and  some  Mnn.  only.  !!*.  B.,  ETtavaitarjdE- 
rai  instead  of  ETtavaitcxv6Erai. 

X  Ver.  7.  E6ri  is  omitted  by  ».  B.  D.  L.  X.  Z. 


CHAP.   X.  :  5-16.  295 

of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you."  A  favorable  reception  is  supposed.  The  messen- 
ger of  Christ,  regardiog  his  entrance  into  that  house  above  evei}  thing  elsa  as  a  prov- 
idential event,  is  to  fix  his  residence  there  during  the  entire  period  of  his  stay  in  tliat 
place  (see  ou  9  :  4).  ^Ey  avrtj  ry  oi'mux,  not  "  in  the  same  house,"  as  if  it  were  iv 
Tjf  avrfj  oihia,  but,  "  in  that  same  house  which  he  entered  at  first."  They  are,  be- 
sides, to  regard  themselves  immediately  as  members  of  the  family,  and  to  cat  with- 
out scruple  the  bread  of  their  hosts.  It  is  the  price  of  their  labor.  They  give  more 
than  they  receive. 

In  ver.  8  Jesus  applies  the  same  principle  to  the  whole  city  which  shall  receive 
them.  Their  arrival  resembles  a  triumplial  entrance  :  they  are  served  with  food  ; 
the  sick  are  brought  to  them  ;  tliey  speak  publicly.  It  is  a  mistake  to  find  in  the 
words  of  Paul,  Ilav  to  TcapanOafisvov  IdOieTS  (1  Cor.  10  :  27),  an  allusion  to  this 
ver.  8  ;  the  object  of  the  two  sayings  is  entirely  different.  There  is  here  no  question 
■whatever  as  to  the  cleanness  or  uncleanness  of  the  viands  ;  we  are  yet  in  a  Jewish 
•world.  The  accus.  government  tcp  vjitdi,  unto  (t/pon)  you,  expresses  the  efficacy  of 
the  message,  its  action  upon  the  individuals  concerned.  The  perf.  i)yyiKE  indicates 
that  the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  thenceforth  a  fact.  It  is  near  ;  the 
presence  of  the  messengers  of  the  Messiah  is  the  proof. 

Vers.  10-12.*  "  But  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter,  and  they  receive  you  not,  go 
your  ways  out  into  the  streets  of  the  same,  and  say,  11.  Even  the  verj'  dust  of  your 
oily,  which  cleaveth  on  us,  we  do  wipe  off  against  you  :  notwithstanding  be  ye  sure 
of  this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you.  12.  But  1  say  unto  you, 
that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  in  that  day  for  Sodom  than  for  that  city."  This  proc- 
lamation, and  the  symbolical  act  with  which  it  closes,  are  solemn  events  ;  they  will 
play  a  part  in  the  judgnienf  of  those  populations.  Kai,  this  tery  dust.  The  dat. 
■v^uv,  to  you,  expresses  the  idea,  ''  we  return  it  to  you,  by  shakiug  it  from  our  feel." 
There  is  the  breaking  up  of  everj'-  bond  of  connection  (see  9  :  5).  IIXijv  indicates,  as 
it  always  docs,  a  restriction  :  "  Further,  we  have  nothing  else  to  announce  to  you, 
excepting  that  .  .  ."  In  spite  of  the  bad  reception,  which  will  undoubtedly  pre- 
vent the  visit  of  Jesus,  this  time  will  nevertheless  be  to  them  the  decisive  epoch. 
'E<p  vi.ia.<i,  upon  you,  in  the  T.  R.,  is  a  gloss  taken  from  ver.  9.  Tliat  day  may  de- 
note the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  peoph;  by  the  Romans,  or  the  last  judgment.  The 
two  punishments,  the  one  of  which  is  more  national,  the  other  individual,  are 
blended  together  in  this  threatening  of  the  Lord,  as  in  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (3  :  9). 
Yet  the  idea  of  the  last  judgment  seems  to  be  the  prevailing  one,  from  what  follows, 
ver.  14. 

This  threatening,  wherein  the  full  gravity  of  the  present  time  is  revealed,  and  the 
deep  feeling  expressed  which  Jesus  had  of  the  supreme  character  of  His  mi.ssion, 
leads  the  Lord  to  cast  a  glance  backward  at  the  conduct  of  the  cities  whose  proba- 
tion is  now  concluded,  and  whose  sentence  is  no  longer  in  suspense.  The  memory 
of  the  awful  words  which  they  are  about  to  hear  will  follow  the  disciples  on  their 
mission,  and  will  impress  them  with  its  vast  importance. 

Vers.  1:3-16. f  "  Woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin  ^    Woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida  !  for  if  the 

*  Ver.  10.  i(.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnu.,  sidaXOf^rs  instead  of  EidepxV^^'^'^-  Ver. 
11.  !!(.  B.  D.  R.  some  Mnn.  Syr'^"^  itpitr.que^  .^^\(\  ^,5  ^^i;?  TCoSai  ailev  vjnooy.  ».  B. 
I).  L.  Z.  some  Man.  JSyr"".  Itr'"'')"*^,  omit  ecp  v/tai. 

f  Ver.  15.  Instead  of  77  scji  ovpavov  vi'coOfida,  which  the  T.  R.  reads,  with  IH 
Mjj.  almost  all  the  Mnn.  Syr*""".  It"''T.,  the  reading  is//;;  eooi  zov  ovpavov  vii'w'ir]6i] 


296  COMMEIS-TARy    Oif   ST.  LUKE. 

mighty  works  had  been  clone  in  Tyre  and  Sidon  which  have  been  done  in  you,  they 
had  a  great  while  ago  repented,  sitting  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  14.  But  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  at  tlie  judgment  than  for  you.  15.  And  thou, 
Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  to  heaven,  «halt  be  thrust  down  to  hell.  16.  He  that 
hoareth  you  heareth  me  ;  aud  he  that  despiseth  you  despiselh  me  ;  and  he  that  de- 
spiseth  me  despiseth  Him  that  sent  me."  The  name  of  Choraziu  is  not  found  either 
in  the  O.  T.  or  in  Josephus.  But  Jewish  tradition  mentions  it  frequently  either  under 
the  name  of  Chorazaim,  as  producing  a  cheese  of  inferior  quality,  or  under  that  of 
Choraschin,  as  situated  in  NaphtaH.* 

According  to  Eusebius  ("  Onomasticon"),  Chorazin  was  situated  12  miles 
(4  leagues) — Jerome  says,  certainly  by  mistake,  in  his  translation,  2  miles— from 
Capernaum.  This  situation  corresponds  exactly  with  the  ruins  which  still  bear  the 
name  of  Bir-Kirazeh,  a  little  to  the  north  of  Tel-Hum,  if  we  place  Capernaum  in  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret  (p.  155). f  We  do  not  know  any  of  the  numerous  miracles 
which  this  declaration  implies.  Of  those  at  Bethsaida  we  know  only  one.  On  the 
important  consequences  which  this  fact  has  for  criticism,  see  p.  21G.  The  interpre- 
tation which  M.  Colanihas  attempted  to  give  to  the  word  8vvd/iEii  in  this  passage — 
works  of  holiness — will  not  bear  discussion. 

It  is  impossible  to  render  well  into  English  the  image  employed  by  Jesus.  The 
two  cities  personilied  are  represented  as  sitting  clothed  in  sackcloth,  aud  covered 
with  ashes.  The  TcXfjy,  excepting,  is  related  to  an  idea  which  is  understood  :  "  Tyre 
and  Sidon  shall  also  be  found  guilty  ;  only,  they  shall  be  so  in  a  less  degree  than 
you."  The  tone  rises  (ver.  15)  as  the  mind  of  Jesus  turns  to  the  city  which  had 
shared  most  richly  in  that  effusion  of  grace  of  which  Galilee  has  just  been  the  subject 
— Capernaum.  It  was  there  that  Jesus  had  fixed  his  residence  ;  He  had  made  it  the 
new  Jerusalem,  the  cradle  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
commentators  could  have  referred  the  words,  exalted  to  Jieaten,  to  the  commercial 
prosperity  of  the  city,  and  Sticr  to  its  alleged  situation  on  a  hill  by  the  side  of  the 
lake  !  This  whole  discourse  of  Jesus  moves  in  the  most  elevated  sphere.  The  point 
iu  question  is  the  privilege  whicli  Jesus  bestowed  on  the  city  by  making  it  His  city 
(Matt.  9  : 1).  Notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Tischendorf,  we  unhesitatingly  pre- 
fer the  received  reading  rj  vrpooOeida,  "  which  art  exalted,"  to  that  of  some  Alex., 
//;)  v4>a)fh}6^,  "Wilt  thou  be  exalted?  No,  thou  wilt  come  down  .  .  ."  The 
meaning  which  this  reading  gives  is  tame  and  insipid.  It  has  arisen  simply  from  the 
fact  that  the  final  n  of  Capernaum  was  by  mistake  joined  to  the  following  rj,  which, 
thus  become  a  /.irj,  necessitated  the  change  from  vipooOsTda  to  vjf)oo''n'j6y.  This  vari- 
atiou  is  also  found  in  Matthew,  where  the  mss.  show  another  besides,  ?/  vil^wfirj'i, 
which  gives  the  same  meaning  as  the  T.  R.  As  Heaven  is  here  the  eml)lem  of  the 
highest  divine  favors.  Hades  is  that  of  the  deepest  abasement.     In  the  O.  T.  it  is  the 

in  i*.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  SyT<^°^  Tt»"<i.  B.  D.  Syr'=".,  ■Karaftr}6rj  {iTioxi  shnlt  deffcenrf)  instead 
of  narafJi/SadBr^dr;  {thou  sJinlt  be  cast  down).  The  MSS.  are  divided  between  ovpavov 
and  Tov    ovpavov,  aSov  and  rov  afiov. 

*  "  Tr.  Menachoth,"  fol.  85,  1  ;  "  Baba  bathra,"  fol.  15, 1  (see  Caspari,  "  Chron, 
geogr.  Einleitunt;;  in  das  Leben  ,Tesu  Chri?ti,"  )>.  76). 

f  Comp.  Van  de  Velde  and  Felix  Bovet.  The  latter  snys  :  "  They  assure  me  at 
Tiberias  tiiat  there  is  on  the  ninunta'n,  at  the  distance  of  a,  league  and  a  half  from 
Tel-Hum,  a  ruin  called  Bir  (W/H)  Keresoun.  This  may  probably  be  the  Chorazin  of 
tlie  Gospel."     "  Voyage  eu  Tairc-Saiulc,"  p.  415. 


CHAP.   X.  :  17-20.  297 

place  of  silence,  wlicre  nil  earthly  nclivily  ceases,  where  all  human  c^randeur  returns 
to  its  nolhini.niess  (K/.ek.  ;]1  and  ',12). 

3Ialthe\v  places  this  declaration  in  the  middle  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  immedi- 
ately after  the  einl>assy  sent  by  John  the  Baptist.  We  can  underslanil  without  dilTi- 
cully  the  association  of  i  leas  which  led  the  evangelist  to  connect  the  one  of  those 
pieces  with  the  other.  The  imiienitence  of  the  people  in  respect  of  the  forerunner 
was  the  prelude  to  their  unbelief  in  respect  of  Jesus.  But  does  not  the  historical  sit- 
uation indicated  by  LuUe  deserve  the  preference  ?  Is  such  a  denunciation  not  much 
more  intelligible  when  the  mission  of  Jesus  to  those  cities  was  entirely  linlshed? 
Luke  adds  u  saying,  ver.  IG,  which,  by  going  back  on  the  thought  in  the  first  part  of 
the  discourse,  brings  out  its  unity— the  position  taken  up  with  respect  to  the  mes- 
sengers of  Jesus  and  their  preaching,  shall  be  equivalent  to  a  position  taken  up  with 
respect  to  Jesus,  nay.  with  respect  to  God  Himself.  What  a  grandeur,  then,  belongs 
to  the  work  which  lie  cunlides  to  them  ! 

2d.  The  Eciuni :  vers.  17-24 — Jesus  had  appointed  a  rendezvous  for  His  disciples 
at  a  li.xed  place.  From  the  word  vTtE^TiJE^av,  they  returned  {var.  17),  it  would  even 
appear  that  the  place  was  that  from  which  He  had  sent  them.  Did  He  await  them 
there,  or  did  He  in  the  interval  take  some  other  direction  along  with  His  apostles  ? 
The  sequel  will  perhaps  throw  some  light  on  this  question.  His  intention  certainly 
was  Himself  to  visit  along  with  them  all  those  localities  in  which  they  had  preceded 
Him  (ver.  1).  This  very  simple  explanation  sets  aside  all  the  improbabilities  which 
have  been  imputed  to  this  narrative.  The  return  of  the  disciples  was  signalized,  first 
of  all,  by  a  conversation  of  Jesus  with  them  about  their  mission  (vers.  17-20)  ;  then 
by  an  outburst,  unique  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour,  regarding  the  unexpected  but  mar- 
vellous progress  of  His  work  (vers.  21-24). 

Vers.  17-20.*  The  Joy  of  tlie  Disciples. — "And  the  seventy  returned  again  with 
joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the  devils  are  subject  unto  us  through  Thy  name.  18.  And 
He  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven.  19.  Behold,  I  give 
unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of  the 
enemy  :  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you.  20.  Only  in  this  rejoice  not,  that 
the  spirits  are  subject  unto  you  ;  but  rejoice  because  your  names  are  written  in 
heaven."  The  phrase,  with  joy,  expresses  the  tone  of  the  whole  piece.  The  joy  of 
the  disciples  becomes  afterward  that  of  Jesus  ;  and  then  it  bursts  forth  from  His 
heart  exalted  and  purified  (ver.  21,  et  seq.).  Confident  in  the  promise  of  their  Master, 
they  had  set  themselves  to  heal  the  sick,  and  in  this  way  they  had  soon  come  to 
attack  the  severest  nialad}-  of  all — that  of  possession  ;  and  they  had  succeeded.  Their 
surprise  at  this  unhoped-for  success  is  described,  with  the  vivacity  of  an  entirely  fresh 
experience  by  the  nai,  "even  the  devils,"  and  by  the  prcs.  vnuTaddsrcxi,  submit 
themaelves.  The  word  iOsaJpovv,  I  teas  contemplating,  denotes  an  intuition,  not  a 
vision.  Jesus  does  not  appear  to  liave  had  visions  after  that  of  Jlis  baptism.  The 
tvvo  acts  which  the  imperfect  I  teas  contemplating  shows  to  be  simultaneous,  are  evi- 
dently that  informal  perception,  and  the  triumphs  of  the  disciples  recorded  in  ver. 
17  :  "  While  j-ou  were  expelling  the  subordinates,  I  was  seeing  the  master  fall."     On 

*  Ver.  17.  B.  D.  It""!,  add  di>o  after  r^/iour/Hnvra.  Ver.  19.  i».  B.  C.  L.  X. 
some  Mnn.  Vss.  and  Fathers,  Se^mmci:  in  place  of  Si'ioj/.ii,  which  is  the  reading  of  15 
Mjj.  the  most  of  Ihe  ]Mnn.  Syr.  Justin,  Jr.  Ver.  20.  The //aAAo/' which  the  T.  R. 
reads  after  jn-zp^re  de  is  supported  only  by  X.  and  some  Mnn.  !*.  B.  L.  X., 
EyyEypanrai  instead  of  Eyftatpij. 


398  COMMENTAIIY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

the  external  scene,  the  representatives  on  both  sides  were  struggling  :  in  the  inmost 
consciousness  of  Jesus,  it  was  the  two  chiefs  that  were  face  to  face.  The  fall  of 
Satan  wiiich  He  contemplates,  symbolizes  the  complete  destruction  of  his  kingdom, 
the  goal  of  that  work  which  is  inaugurated  by  the  present  successes  of  llie  disciples  ; 
Comp.  John  12  :  31.  Now  the  grand  work  of  Saian  on  the  earth,  according  to  IScnp- 
lure,  is  idolatry.  Paganism  throughout  is  nothing  else  than  a  diabolical  enchantment. 
It  has  been  nut  unjustly  called  une  j^osnessioii  en  grande*  Satan  sets  himself  up  as 
the  object  of  human  adoration.  As  the  ambitious  experience  satisfaction  in  the 
incense  of  glory,  so  he  finds  the  savor  of  the  same  in  all  those  impure  worships, 
which  are  in  reality  addressed  to  himself  (1  Cor.  10  :  20).  There  remains  nevei- 
theless  a  great  difference  between  the  scriptural  view  of  Paganism  and  the  opiuiou 
prevalent  among  the  Jews,  according  to  which  eiery  Pagan  divinity  was  a  sepaiate 
demon.  Heaven  denotes  here,  like  kv  eitovpavwii,  Eph.  6  :  12,  the  higher  spheie 
from  the  midst  of  which  Satan  acts  upon  human  consciousness.  To  fall  from  lieaven, 
is  to  lose  this  state  of  power.  The  figure  used  by  our  Lord  thus  represents  the  over- 
throw of  idolatry  throughout  the  whole  world.  The  aor.  itEGovzcx,  falling,  denotes, 
under  the  form  of  a  single  act,  all  the  victories  of  the  gospel  over  Paganism  from  that 
first  preaching  of  the  disciples  down  to  the  final  denouement  of  the  g.eat  drama  (Rev. 
12).  The  figure  lightening  admirably  depicts  a  power  of  dazzling  l)rillinnce,  which  is 
suddenly  extinguislied.  This  description  of  the  destruction  of  Paganism,  as  the  cer- 
tain goal  of  the  work  ))egun  by  this  mission  of  the  disciples,  confirms  tlie  aniversallsm 
which  we  ascribed  to  the  number  70,  to  the  idea  of  harvest,  ver.  2,  and  in  general  to 
this  whole  piece.  Hofmann  refers  the  word  of  Jesus,  ver.  18,  to  the  devil's  original 
fall  ;  Lange,  to  his  defeat  in  the  wilderness.  These  explanations  proceed  from  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  context. 

Ver.  10.  If  we  admit  the  Alex,  reading,  deSooHa,  I  Jiave  given  you,  Jesus  leads  His 
disciples  to  measure  what  they  had  not  at  first  apprehended— ihe  full  extent  of  the 
power  WMlh  wliich  lie  has  invested  them;  and /Sou,  behold,  relates  to  the  surprise 
which  should  be  raised  in  them  by  this  revelation.  He  would  thus  give  them  the  key 
to  the  unhoped-for  successes  which  they  have  just  won.  The  pres.  diSojjLit  in  the  T. 
R.  relates  to  the  future.  It  denotes  a  new  extension  of  powers  in  view  of  a  work 
more  considerable  still  than  that  which  they  have  just  accomplished,  precisely'  tliat 
which  Jesus  has  described  symbolically,  ver.  18  ;  and  iSov  expresses  the  astonish- 
ment which  they  might  well  feel  at  the  yet  more  elevated  perspective.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  sentence  is  much  more  significant.  Serpents  and  scorpions  are  emblems  of 
the  physical  evils  by  which  Satan  will  seek  to  hurt  the  ambassadors  of  Jesus.  Tiie 
expression,  all  tkepoicer  of  the  enemy,  embraces  all  the  agencies  of  nature,  of  human 
society,  of  things  belonging  to  the  spiritual  order,  which  the  prince  of  this  world  can 
use  to  obstruct  the  work  of  Jesus.  ''Eni  is  dependent  on  hqov6iav  rather  than  on 
TtarsLV  (9  :  1).  In  the  midst  of  all  those  diabolical  instruments,  the  faithful  servant 
walks  clothed  with  invulnerable  armor  ;  not  that  he  is  not  sometimes  subjected  to 
their  attacks,  but  the  wounds  which  he  receives  cannot  hurt  him  so  long  as  tlie  Lord 
has  need  of  his  ministry  (the  viper  at  Malta,  Peter's  imprisonment  by  Herod,  the 
messenger  of  Satan  which  buffets  Paul).  The  same  thought,  with  a  slight  difference 
of  expression,  is  found  Mark  16  :  18  ;  comp.  also  Ps.  91  :  13. 

Ver.  90.   Yet  this  victory  over  the  forces  of  the  enemy  would  be  of  no  value  to 

*  M.  A.  Nicolas. 


CHAP.   X.  :  VJ-22.  o(j.j 

themselves,  if  it  did  not  rest  on  their  personal  salvation.  Think  of  Judas,  and  of 
those  who  are  spoken  of  iu  Matt.  7  :  23,  et  seq.  !  nXijv,  only,  reserves  a  Inilh  mure 
iniportaut  than  that  which  Jesus  has  just  allowed.  Tlie  word  ^ldX^.oy,  "rather 
rejoice,"  which  Ihe  T.  It.  rends,  and  which  is  found  iu  the  Sinait.,  weakens  the 
thought  of  Jesus.  There  is  uo  liniitulion  to  the  truth,  that  tlie  most  magniticent  suc- 
cesses, the  finest  elfects  of  eloquence,  temples  filled,  conversions  h}'  thousands,  are 
n,j  real  cause  of  joy  to  the  servant  of  Jesus,  the  instrument  of  those  works,  except  in 
sa  far  as  he  is  saved  himself.  From  tlie  personal  point  of  view  (which  is  that  of  the 
joy  of  the  disciples  at  the  moment),  this  ground  of  satisfaction  is  and  remains  the  only 
one.  The  figure  of  a  heavenly  register,  in  which  the  names  of  the  elect  are  inscribed, 
is  common  iu  the  Old  Testament  (E.k.  33  :  33,  33  ;  Isa.  4:3;  Dan.  13  :  1).  This 
book  is  the  type  of  the  divine  decree.  But  a  name  may  be  blotted  out  of  it  (Ex.  33  :  33  ; 
Jer.  17  :  13  ;  Ps.  GO  :  39  ;  Kev.  33  :  19)  ;  a  fact  which  preserves  human  freedom. 
Between  the  two  readings,  tyyeypanzat,  is  inscribed,  and  iypdcpi^,  was  written,  it 
is  dillicult  to  decide. 

Vers.  31-34.  Ihe  Joij  of  Jesus.— Wit  reach  a  point  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour,  the 
exceptional  character  of  which  is  expressly  indicated  by  the  first  words  of  the  narra- 
tive, in  that  same  hotir.  Jesus  has  traced  to  their  goal  the  lines  of  which  His  disciples 
discern  as  yet  only  the  beginning.  He  has  seen  in  spirit  the  work  of  Satan  destroyed, 
the  structure  of  the  kingdom  of  God  raised  on  the  earth.  But  by  what  hands  ?  By 
the  hands  of  those  ignorant  fishermen,  those  simple  rustics  wliom  the  powerful  and 
learned  of  Jerusalem  call  accursed  rabble  (John  7  :  49),  "  the  vermin  of  the  earth"  (a 
rabbinical  expression).  Perhaps  Jesus  had  often  meditated  on  the  problem  :  How 
shall  a  work  be  able  to  succeed  which  does  not  obtain  the  assistan(;e  of  any  of  the 
men  of  knowledge  and  authority  iu  Israel  ?  The  success  of  the  mission  of  the  seventy 
has  just  brought  Him  the  answer  of  God  :  it  is  by  the  meanest  instruments  that  He 
is  to  accomplish  the  greatest  of  His  works.  In  this  arrangement,  so  contrary  to 
human  anticipations,  Jesus  recognizes  and  adores  with  an  overflowing  heait  the 
wisdom  of  His  Father. 

Vers.  31,  33.*  "  In  that  same  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit,  and  said,  I  praise  Thee, 
O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  tfie  wise 
and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  tliem  unto  babes  :  even  so,  Father  ;  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  Thy  sight.  33.  All  things  are  delivered  to  me  of  my  Father  :  and  no  one 
knoweth  who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father  ;  and  who  the  Father  is,  but  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  Him."  The  Ttvevjita,  the  spirit,  which  is  here  spo- 
ken of,  is  undoubtedly  that  of  Jesus  Himself,  as  an  element  of  His  human  Person 
(1  Thess.  5  :23  ;  Heb.  4  :  13  ;  Rom.  1  : 9).  The  spirit,  iu  this  sense,  is  in  man  the 
boundless  capacity  of  receiving  the  communications  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  conse- 
quently the  seat  of  all  those  emotions  which  have  God  and  the  things  of  God  for 
their  object  (see  on  1  :  47).  We  think  it  necessarj''  to  read  ro?  Ttvai/nazi  as  dat. 
instr.,  and  that  the  addition  of  t(2  dyia>  {the  holy)  and  of  the  prep,  kv  iu  some  mss. 
arises  from  the  false  application  of  this  expression  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  ""AyaXXi- 
d69ai,  to  exult,  denotes  an  inner  transport,  which  takes  place  in  the  same  deep 

*  Ver.  31.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  sv  rca  nvEx^iiari  and  ro)  Ttvsvjaart. 
ii.  B.  D  Z.  Svr'="V  It""'!,  reject  o  iTjdoDi  after  Trvfv/iicxri,  and  add  rai  ayjco,  with  5 
other  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Syr'-^^  Ver.  33.  14  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syr»"=^  It'-'i. 
here  add  the  words,  nai  drpaqisi?  TTpn?  rovi  fiaOt^rai  Finev,  which  are  omitted  by 
T,  R.  with  ».  B.  D.  L.  M.  Z.  n.  some  Mnn.  Syr'="^  Itpi^ique^ 


300  COMMENTAKY    UN    ST.  LUKE. 

regions  of  the  soul  of  Jesus  as  the  opposite  emotion  expressed  by  the  EpL/3pi/.id6^cn, 
to  [/rocui  {John  11:33).  This  powerful  influeuce  of  external  events  on  the  inner 
being  of  Jesus  proves  how  thoroughly  in  earnest  the  Gospels  take  His  humanity. 
' E^ojiioXo}^£i60ai,  strictly,  to  declare,  confess,  corresponds  in  the  LXX,  to  niin.  io 
p?'aise.  Here  it  expresses  a  joyful  and  confident  acquiescence  in  the  ways  of  God. 
The  words  Father  and  Lord  indicate,  the  former  the  special  love  of  which  Jesus  feels 
Himself  to  be  the  object  in  the  dispensation  which  He  celebrates,  the  latter  the  glori- 
ous sovereignty  iu  virtue  of  which  God  dispenses  with  all  human  conditions  of  suc- 
cess, and  looks  for  it  only  from  His  own  power.  The  close  of  this  verse  has  been 
explained  iu  this  way  :  "  that  while  Thou  hast  hid  .  .  .  Thou  hast  revealed  .  .  ." 
The  giving  of  thanks  would  thus  be  limited  to  the  second  facit.  Comp.  a  similar 
form,  Isa.  50  :  2,  Rom.  6  :  17.  But  we  doubt  that  this  is  to  impair  the  depth  of  our 
Jjord's  thought.  Did  not  God,  in  the  way  iu  which  He  was  guiding  the  work  of 
Jesus  (in  Israel),  wish  quite  as  positively  the  exclusion  of  the  wise  as  the  co-operatiou 
of  the  ignorant  ?  The  motive  for  tiiis  divine  method  is  apparent  from  1  Cor.  1  :  23-31, 
in  particular  from  vers.  29  and  31  :  "  that  no  flesh  should  glory  ;"  and,  "  that  he 
that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."  By  this  rejection  the  great  are  humbled, 
and  see  that  they  are  not  needed  for  God's  work.  On  the  other  hand,  the  mean  can- 
not boast  of  their  co-operation,  since  it  is  evident  that  they  have  derived  nothing 
from  themselves.  We  may  compare  the  saying  of  Jesus  regarding  the  old  and  the 
new  bottles  (vers.  37,  38).  The  wise  were  not  to  mingle  the  alloy  of  their  own  sci- 
ence with  the  divine  wisdom  of  the  gospel.  Jesus  required  instruments  prepared  ex- 
clusively in  liis  own  school,  and  having  no  other  wisdom  than  that  which  He  had 
communicated  to  them  from  His  Father  (John  17  :  8).  When  He  took  a  learned  man 
for  an  apostle.  He  required,  before  employing  him,  to  break  him  as  it  were,  by  the 
experience  of  his  folly.  Jesus,  in  that  hour  of  holy  joy,  takes  account  more  defi- 
nitely of  the  excellence  of  this  divine  procedure  ;  and  it  is  while  contemplating  its 
first  effects  that  His  heart  exults  and  adores.  "  L'6venement  capital  de  I'histoire  du 
monde,"*  carried  out  by  people  who  had  scarcely  a  standing  in  the  human  race  !  Comp. 
John  9  :  39.  The  vai,  "yea.  Father,"  reasserts  strongly  the  acquiescence  of  Jesus  iu 
this  paradoxical  course.  Instead  of  the  nom.  6  ncxzyp.  Father,  it  might  be  thought 
that  he  would  have  used  the  voc.  TtdvEp,  O  Father  !  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse. 
But  the  address  does  not  need  to  be  repeated.  The  nom.  has  another  meaning  :  "  It 
is  as  a  Father  that  Tliou  art  acting  in  thus  directing  my  work."  The  on,  for  that  or 
because,  which  follows,  is  usually  referred  to  an  idea  which  is  understood  ;  "  yea,  it 
is  so,  because  .  .  ."  But  this  ellipsis  would  be  tame.  It  would  be  better  in  that 
case  to  supply  the  notion  of  a  prayer  :  "  Yea,  let  it  be  and  remain  so,  since  .  .  .  !" 
But  is  it  not  more  simple  to  take  on  as  depending  on  t^oixoXoyov^ai :  "yea, 
assuredly,  and  in  spite  of  all,  1  praise  Thee,  because  that  .  .  ."  The  phrase 
evSom'a  Efxitp.  dov  is  a  Hebraism  {HMV  ^jC7  ]iy~l%  Ex.  28  :  38).  Gess  thus  sums 
up  the  thouglit  of  this  verse  :  "  To  pride  of  knowledge,  blindness  is  the  answer  ;  to 
that  simplicity  of  heart  which  wishes  truth,  revelation." 

Ver.  22.  The  words,  And  lie  turned  Him  unto  His  disciples,  which  are  read  here 
by  several  Mjj.,  are  in  vain  defended  by  Tischendorf  and  Meyer.  They  are  not 
authentic.  How  indeed  could  we  understand  this  drpaq^eii,  having  turned  Himself? 
Turned,  Meyer  explains,  turned  from  His  Father,  to  whom  He  has  been  praying, 

*  Renan,  "  Vie  de  Jesus,"  p.  1. 


CIIAl'.     X. 


;i()i 


toward  men.  But  would  the  phrase  turn  Himself  hack  be  suitable  iu  this  sense  7  "We 
have  here  a  gloss  occasinued  by  the  xat  161'ay,  privalely,  of  ver.  23.  The  wish  has 
to  been  to  establish  a  difference  between  this  tirst  revelation,  made  to  the  disciples  in 
general  (ver.  23).  and  the  following,  more  special  still,  addressed  to  some  of  ihein  only 
(ver.  28).  Here  we  have  one  of  tlie  rare  instances  in  which  the  T.  R.  (which  rejects 
the  words)  differs  from  the  third  edition  of  Steph. 

Thejoytul  outburst  of  ver.  21  is  carried  on  without  interruption  into  ver.  22  ; 
only  the  tirst  impression  of  adoration  gives  way  to  cahn  meditation.  The  experience 
through  which  Jesus  has  just  passed  has  transported  llim,  as  it  were,  into  the  bosom 
of  His  Father.  He  plunges  iulo  it,  and  His  words  become  an  echo  of  the  joys  of  His 
eternal  generation. 

As  iu  the  passage  which  precedes  (ver.  21),  and  in  that  which  follows  (22J),  it  is 
only  knowledge  which  is  spoken  of,  the  words,  "  All  things  are  delivered  to  me  of 
my  Father,"  are  often  taken  as  referring  to  the  possession  and  communication  of 
religious  truths,  of  the  knowledge  of  God.  But  the  work  accomplished  by  the  disci- 
ples, on  occasion  of  which  Jesus  uttered  those  sayings,  was  not  merely  a  work  of 
teaching— there  was  necessarily  involved  in  it  a  display  of  force.  To  overturn  the 
throne  of  Satan  on  the  earth,  and  to  put  iu  its  place  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  a  mis- 
sion demanding  a  power  of  action.  But  this  power  was  closely  connected  with  the 
knowledge  of  God.  To  know  God  means  to  be  initiated  into  His  plan  ;  means  to 
think  with  Him,  and  consequently  to  will  as  He  does.  Now,  to  will  with  God,  and 
to  be  self-consecrated  to  Him  as  an  instrument  in  His  service,  is  the  secret  of  partici- 
pation in  His  omnipotence.  "  The  education  of  souls,"  Gess  rightly  observes,  "  is 
the  greatest  of  the  works  of  Omnipotence."  Everything  in  the  univer.se,  accord- 
ingly, should  be  subordinate  to  it.  Ther-e  is  a  strong  resemblance  between  this  saj'- 
ing  of  Jesus  and  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (John  3  :  85) :  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son, 
and  hath  given  all  things  into  His  hand  "—a  declaration  which  is  immediately  con- 
nected with  the  other  relative  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  :  "  He  whom  God  hath  sent 
speaketh  the  words  of  God." 

The  gift  denoted  by  the  aor.  TtcxpeSu'OT/,  are  deliveved  to  me,  is  the  subject  of  an 
eternal  decree  ;  but  it  is  realized  progressively  in  time,  like  everything  wliich  is  sub- 
ject to  the  conditions  of  human  development.  The  chief  periods  in  its  realization  are 
these  three  :  The  coming  of  Jesus  into  the  world,  His  entrance  upon  His  Messianic 
ministry,  and  His  restoration  to  His  divine  state.  Such  are  the  steps  by  which  the 
new  Master  took  the  place  of  the  old  (4  :  0),  and  was  raised  to  Omnipotence.  "  De- 
livered," Gess  well  observes,  "  either  for  salvation  or  for  judgment."  The  xai,  and, 
which  coanects  the  two  parts  of  the  verse,  may  be  thus  paraphrased  :  and  that,  be- 
cause .  .  .  The  future  conquest  of  the  world  by  Jesus  and  His  disciples  rests  on 
the  relation  which  He  sustains  to  God,  and  with  which  He  identifies  His  people. 
The  perfect  knowledge  of  God  is,  in  the  end,  the  sceptre  of  the  universe.  Here  there 
is  a  remarkable  difference  in  compiling  between  Luke  and  jMatthew  :  ovf^eli  Inyi- 
ro66KEi,  uo  one  recognizes,  or  discerns,  says  Matthew.  To  the  idea  of  knowing,  this 
ETti  (to  put  the  finger  upon)  has  the  effect  of  adding  the  idea  of  confirming  experi- 
mentally. The  knowledge  in  question  is  one  de  visu.  Luke  uses  the  simple  verb 
ytvo66HEiv,  to  know,  which  is  weaker  and  less  precise  ;  but  he  makes  up  for  this  de- 
ficiency in  the  notion  of  the  verb  by  amplifying  its  regimen.  "  What  is  the  Father 
.  .  .  what  is  the  Son  ;"  that  is  to  sa\%  all  that  God  is  as  a  Father  to  the  man  who 
has  the  happiness  of  knowing  Him  as  a  son,  and  all  that  the  name  son  includes  for 


302  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

the  man  who  has  the  happiness  of  hearing  it  pronounced  by  the  muuth  of  the  Father 
— all  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  the  one  to  the  otherl  Perhaps  Matthew's  form  of 
expression  is  a  shade  more  intellectual  or  didactic  ;  thit  of  Luke  rather  moves  in  the 
sphere  of  feeling.  How  should  we  explain  the  two  forms,  each  of  which  is  evidently- 
independent  of  the  other?  Jesus  must  have  employed  in  Aramaic  the  verb  y-ji,  to 
know*  Now  v'~p  is  construed  either  with  the  accusative  or  with  one  of  the  two  prep- 
ositions -I,  in,  or  ^y,  upon.  The  construction  with  one  or  other  of  these  preposi- 
tions adds  something  to  the  notion  of  the  verb.  For  example,  yj3^',  to  hear; 
h  yOti'.  to  listen;  "2  JJDIi'*.  to  listen  toith  acquiescence  of  heart.  There  is  a  similar 
difference  of  meaning  between  yT  and  ^  yii  or  ^y  y"l">— a  difference  analogous  to 
that  between  the  two  expressions,  ram  cognoacere  and  cofjnoscere  de  re,  to  know  a  thing 
and  to  know  of  a  thing.  Thus,  in  the  passage  in  Job  37  :  16,  wh«re  j;"!^  is  construed 
with  ^y,  upon,  the  sense  is  not,  "  Knowest  thou  balancings  of  the  clouds  ?"— Job 
could  not  but  have  known  the  fact  which  falls  under  our  eyes — but  "  Understandest 
thou  the  .  .  '?"  Now  if  we  suppose  that  Jesus  used  the  verb  y]i  with  one  of 
the  prepositions  ^  or  7,  the  two  Greek  forms  may  be  explained  as  two  different  at- 
tempts to  render  the  entire  fulness  of  the  Aramaic  expression  ;  that  of  Matthew 
strengthening  the  notion  of  the  simple  verb  by  the  preposition  tTtt  (recognize)  (which 
would  correspond  more  literally  with  "p'y  y"*p)  ;  that  of  Luke,  by  giving  greater  ful- 
ness to  the  idea  of  the  object,  by  means  of  the  paraphrase  r/5  Idriv,  what  is.\ 

A  remarkable  example,  9  :  3,  has  already  shown  how  differences  of  matter  and 
form  in  the  reproduction  of  the  words  of  Jesus  by  our  evangelists  are  sometimes  ex- 
plained with  the  utmost  ease  by  going  back  to  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  text.^  What 
a  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  those  discourses  !  What  a  proof  also  of  the  independ- 
ence of  our  several  Greek  digests  ! 

That  exclusive  knowledge  which  the  Father  and  Son  have  of  one  another  is  evi- 
dently not  the  cause  of  their  paternal  and  filial  relation  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  effect 
of  it.  Jesus  is  not  the  Son  because  He  alone  perfectly  knows  the  Father,  and  is 
fully  known  only  by  Him  ;  but  He  knows  Him  and  is  known  by  Him  in  this 
way  only  because  He  is  the  Son.  In  like  manner,  God  is  not  tlie  Father  because 
He  alone  knows  the  Son,  and  is  known  only  by  Him  ;  but  this  double  knowl- 
edge is  the  effect  of  that  paternal  relation  which  He  sustains  to  the  Son.  The  article 
before  the  two  substantives  serves  to  raise  this  unique  relation  above  the  relative  tem- 
poral order  of  things,  and  to  put  it  in  the  sphere  of  the  absolute,  in  the  very  essence 
of  the  two  Beings.  God  did  not  become  Father  at  an  hour  marked  on  some  earthly 
dial.  If  He  is  a  Father  to  certain  beings  l)orn  in  time,  it  is  because  He  is  the  Father 
absolutely — that  is  to  say,  in  relation  to  a  Being  who  is  not  born  in  time,  and  who  is 
toward  Him  the  Son  as  absolutely.  Such  is  the  explanation  of  the  difficult  verse, 
Epb.  3  :  15.     Mark,  who  has  not  the  passage,  gives  another  wherein  the  term  the 

*  1  owe  the  following  observations  to  the  kindness  of  M.  Felix  Bovet. 

f  In  the  passage  quoted  from  Job,  the  two  principal  German  translations  present 
a  remarkable  parallel.  DeWette:  Weisstduum  .  .  ?  Ewald  :  Verstehs  dn.  .  ? 
Both  have  thoroughly  apprehended  the  sense  of  tbe  original  expression  ;  each  has 
sought  to  reproduce  it  in  his  own  way. 

X  Many  other  similar  examples  might  be  cited,  e.g.  Luke  6  :  20.  If  Jesus  said  Ciijy 
we  can  explain  both  the  brief  nr 00x01  ol  Luke  as  a  literal  translation  ad  sensam  (ac- 
cording to  the  known  shade  which  the  meaning  of  ijy  bears  throughout  the  Old 
Testament). 


cHAi'.   x.  :  2:i,  -^'o.  303 

i>on  is  used  in  the  same  absolute  sense,  13  :  32  :  "  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  know- 
eth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  |\'hich  are  m  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father." 
After  words  like  these,  we  catfcot  admit  any  radical  difTerence  between  the  Jesus 
of  the  Synoptics  and  llial  of  John.*  The  existence  of  the  Son  beh>nging  to  tho 
essence  of  the  Father,  the  pre-existence  of  the  one  is  implied  in  the  eternity  of  tho 
other. 

Immediate  knowledge  of  the  Father  is  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  Son.  But  it 
becomes  the  portion  of  believers  as  soon  as  He  initiates  them  into  the  contents  of  Ilis 
filial  consciousness,  and  consents  to  share  it  with  them.  By  this  participation  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  Son  (the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit),  tho  believer  in  his  turn  at- 
tains to  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  the  Father.  Conip.  John  1  :  18,  14  :  6,  17  :  26. 
With  Gess,  we  ought  to  remaik  the  unportance  of  tho  priority  given  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  Son  by  the  Father  over  that  of  the  Father  by  the  Son.  Were  the  order  inverted, 
the  gift  of  all  things,  the  nixpaSiSoyat,  would  have  appeared  to  rest  on  the  religious 
instruction  which  Jesus  had  been  giving  to  men.  The  actual  order  makes  it  the  con- 
sequence of  the  unsearchable  relation  between  Jesus  and  the  Father,  in  virtue  of 
which  He  can  be  to  souls  everything  that  the  Father  Himself  is  to  them.  This  pas- 
sage (vers.  21,  22)  is  placed  by  ]\Iatthew,  chap.  11,  after  the  denunciation  pronounced 
on  the  Galilean  cities,  and  immediately  following  on  the  deputation  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. We  cannot  comprehend  those  of  our  critics,  Gess  included,  who  prefer  this  situa- 
tion to  that  of  Luke.  Gess  thinks  that  the  disciples  (10  :  21)  are  contrasted  with  the 
unbelieving  Galilean  cities.  But  the  whole  passage  refers  to  the  disciples  as  instru- 
ments in  God's  work  ;  and  Jesus  contrasts  them  not  with  the  ignorant  Galileans,  but 
with  the  wise  of  Jerusalem.  See  Matthew  even,  ver.  25.  As  to  the  following  sen- 
tence, ver.  22,  Gess  thinks  that  he  can  paraphrase  it  thus  :  "  No  man,  not  even  John 
the  Baptist,  knoweth  the  Son  .  .  .  "in  order  thus  to  connect  it  with  the  account 
of  the  forerunner's  embassy,  which  forms  the  preceding  context  in  Matthew.  But  in 
relation  to  the  preceding  verse  the  word  no  man  alludes  not  to  John,  but  to  the  %cise 
and  learned  of  Jerusalem,  who  pretended  that  they  alone  had  the  knowledge  of  God 
(11  :  52).  It  is  not  difficult,  then,  to  perceive  the  superiority'  ot  Luke's  context ; 
and  we    may  prove  here,    as    everywhere  else,   the  process    of    concatenation,  in 

*  M.  Tleville  has  found  out  a  way  of  getting  rid  of  our  passage.  Jesus,  he  will 
have  it,  said  one  day  in  a  melancholy  tone  :  "  God  alone  reads  my  heart  to  its  depths, 
and  I  alone  also  know  God."  And  this  "  perfectly  natural"  thought,  "  under  the 
intluence  of  a  later  theology, "  took  the  form  in  which  we  find  itliere  ("  Hist,  du 
Dogme  de  la  Div.  de  J.  C. "  p.  17).  M.  Reville  finds  a  confirmation  of  his  hypothe- 
sis in  the  fact  that  in  their  present  form  the  words  strangely  break  the  thread  of  the 
discourse.  We  think  that  we  have  shown  their  relation  to  the  situation  in  geneial, 
and  to  the  preceding  context  in  particular.  And  the  searching  study  of  the  fclations 
between  Luke's  form  and  that  of  Matthew  has  led  us  up  to  a  Hebrew  formula  neces- 
sarily anterior  to  all  "  later  theology. "  One  must  have  an  exegetical  conscience  of 
rare  elasticity  to  be  able  to  find  rest  bj--  means  of  such  expedients.  M.  Reuan  having 
no  hope  of  evacuating  I  he  words  of  their  real  contents,  simply  sets  them  down  as  a 
later  interpolation  :  "  ^latt.  11  :  27  and  Luke  10  :  22  represent  in  the  synoptic  system 
a  late  interpolalion  in  keeping  with  the  tj'pe  of  the  Joliannine  discourses."  But 
what  !  an  interpolalinn  simultaneously  in  the  two  writings?  in  two  different  contexts? 
in  all  the  manuscripts  and  in  all  the  versions?  and  with  the  dilTerences  which  we 
have  established  and  explained  by  the  Aramaic?  Let  us  take  an  example  :  The  dox- 
ology  interpolated  in  Matthew  (6  :  13),  at  the  end  ot  the  Lord's  prayer.  It  is  wanting 
in  very  many  Mss.  and  Vss.,  and  is  not  found  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke. 
Such  are  the  evidences  of  a  real  interpolation. 


304  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

virtue  of  which  we  find  differeut  elements  united  together  in  Matt  11  :  7-30  by  a 
simple  association  of  ideas  iu  the  mind  of  the  compiler. 

With  the  last  words  of  ver.  22,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  revcaZ  Him,  the 
thought  of  Jesus  reverts  to  His  disciples  who  surround  Him,  and  in  whom  there  is 
produced  at  this  very  time  the  beginning  of  the  promised  illumination.  He  now  ad- 
dresses Himself  to  them.  The  meditation  of  ver.  22  is  the  transition  between  the 
adoration  of  ver.  21  and  the  congratulation  which  follows. 

Vers.  23  and  24,*  "  And  He  turned  Him  unto  His  disciples,  and  said  privately. 
Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  that  ye  see  :  24.  For  1  tell  you,  that  many 
prophets  and  kings  have  desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen 
them  ;  and  to  hear  those  things  which  ye  hear,  and  have  not  heard  them."  Elevated 
as  was  the  conception  which  the  disciples  had  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  they 
were  far  from  appreciating  at  its  full  value  the  fact  of  His  appearance,  and  the  privi- 
lege of  being  the  agents  of  such  a  Master.  At  this  solemn  hour  Jesus  seeks  to  open 
their  eyes.  But  He  cannot  express  Himself  publicly  on  the  subject.  It  is,  as  it  were, 
in  an  undertone  that  He  makes  this  revelation  to  them,  vers.  23  and  24  This  last 
sentence  admirably  finishes  the  piece.  We  find  it  in  Matthew,  chap.  13,  applied  to 
the  new  mode  of  teaching  which  Jesus  had  just  employed  by  making  use  of  the  form 
of  parables.  The  expression,  those  things  which  ye  see,  is  incompatible  with  this 
application,  which  is  thus  swept  away  by  the  text  of  Matthew  himself.  Luke  here 
omits  the  beautiful  passage  with  which  Matthew  (11  :  28-30)  closes  this  discourse  : 
"  Come  luiio  ine  .  .  ."  If  he  had  known  such  words,  would  he  have  omitted 
them  ?  Is  not  this  invitation  in  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  his  gos- 
pel ?  Holtzmann,  who  feels  how  much  the  theory  of  the  emploj'ment  of  a  common 
source  is  compromised  by  this  omission,  endeavors  to  explain  it.  He  supposes  that 
Luke,  as  a  good  Pauliuist,  must  have  taken  offence  at  the  word  zaneivoS,  humble, 
when  applied  to  Christ,  as  well  as  at  the  terms  yoke  and  burden,  which  recalled  the  law 
too  strongly.  And  it  is  in  face  of  Luke  22  :  27,  "  1  am  among  you  as  he  that  serveth 
.  .  ."  and  of  16  :  17,  "  It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of 
the  law  to  fail  .  .  ."  that  such  reasons  are  advanced  !  His  extremity  here  drives 
Holtzmann  to  use  one  of  those  Tubingen  processes  which  he  himself  combats 
throughout  his  whole  book. 

Modern  criticism  denies  the  historical  character  of  this  second  mission.  It  is 
nothing  more,  Baur  alleges,  than  an  invention  of  Luke  to  lower  the  mission  of  the 
•Twelve,  and  to  exalt  that  of  Paul  iind  his  assistants,  of  whom  our  seventy  are  pro- 
vided as  the  precursors.  With  what  satisfaction  does  not  this  Luke,  who  is  silent  as 
to  the  effects  of  the  sending  of  the  Twelve,  describe  those  of  the  present  mission  ! 
He  goes  the  length  of  applying  to  the  latter,  and  that  designedly,  part  of  the  instruc- 
tions which  .Jesus  had  given  (Matt.  10)  iu  regard  to  the  former  !  Besides  ,the  other 
Gospels  nowhere  mention  those  seventy  evangelists  whose  mission  Luke  is  pleased  to 
relate  !  Holtzmtmn,  who  likewise  denies  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative, 
does  not,  however,  ascribe  to  Luke  any  deliberate  fraud.  The  explanation  of  the 
matter  is,  according  to  him,  a  purely  literary  one.  Of  the  two  sources  which  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  consulted,  the  former — that  is,  the  original  Mark — recorded  the  send- 
ing of  the  Twelve  with  a  few  brief  instructions,  such  as  we  have  found  in  Luke 
9  :  1-6  and  Mark  6  :  7-13  ;  the  second,  the  Logia,  contained  the  full  and  detailed  dis- 
course which  Jesus  must  have  delivered  on  the  occasion,  as  we  read  it  Matt.  10. 
The  author  of  our  first  Gospel  saw  that  the  discourse  of  the  Logia  applied  to  the  send- 
ing of  the  Twelve  mentioned  iu  the  original  Mark,  and  attached  it  thereto.     Luke 

*  Ver.  23.  D.  Syr<=".  Itpi^iti-^  Vg.  omit  xar  iSiav. 


CHAP.  X.  :  :>a-37.  305 

hud  not  the  same  perspicucity.     After  having  related  the  mission  of  the  Twelve 

(U  :  l-(i)  iiller  the  pioto-Miii  k,  lie  found  the  great  discourse  in  the  Ln(/i(t  ;  iiird  to  get 
a  suitiible  place  for  il,  lie  tliouglil  thai  he  niii*-t  ereate  a  situation  at  his  own  luiiid. 
With  tills  view,  but  without  tlie  least  purpose  of  a  dogmatic  kind,  he  iuuigiued  a  sec- 
ond uiissiuu,  that  of  the  seventy. 

IJul  if  tlie  origin  of  this  narrative  were  as  Baur  supposes,  how  should  only  the 
Twelve  reappear  later  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (17  :  5,  18  :  'i\),  without  evir  a  word 
more  of  those  sevcuty  ?  How  should  Luke  in  the  Acts  make  nt)  nuiilimi  of  those 
latter?  Was  it  not  easy  and  natural,  after  having  inrenUd  llicni,  to  give  tluni  a  part  i 
to  play  in  the  mission  organized  uudtT  Paul's  direelion  ?  An  author  does  u(,t  lie  in 
goi.d  earnest,  only  to  forget  theieafler  to  make  use  of  his  liaud.  We  have  found 
liial.  as  to  the  mission  of  liie  Twelve,  Luke  says  at  least  (1)  :  10),  "  And  the  apostles, 
when  the}-  were  leturued.  told  Him,  all  that  they  had  done"  (lemark  tlie  ocJft, 
stronger  llian  the  simple  a) ;  while  iMatlheft',  after  the  discouise,  adds  not  a  single 
woiilabout  the  missiiu  and  its  results  1  In  shoit,  the  narrative  of  the  sindiug  of  the 
seventy  is  so  far  fioiu  being  a  Pauliuist  invention,  that  in  a  work  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, pioeeediiig  from  the  sect  most  hostile  to  Paul,  we  tind  the  following  jiai-siige 
put  in  the  mouih  of  Peter  ("  Recegnil.  Clem.,"  i.  24)  :  "  He  first  chose  us  twelve, 
whom  lie  called  apostles  ;  then  He  chose  seventy-two  other  disciples  fiom  among 
the  most  faithful."  The  <jld  historians  have  undoubtedly  been  somewhat  arbitrary 
in  numbering  among  those  seventy  many  persons  whom  they  designate  as  having 
formed  part  of  them.  But  this  false  application  proves  nothing  against  the  fact 
itself  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  attests  the  impression  which  the  Church  had  of  its  reality. 

The  opinion  of  Iloltzmauu  Avould  charge  the  sacred  historian  with  an  aibitraiiiiess 
incomi)atible  with  the  serious  love  of  historical  truth  which  is  expjxssed,  accoiding 
to  Holtzmann  himself,  in  his  introduction.  Besides  we  shall  see  (17  :  1-10)  how 
entirely  foreiirn  such  procedure  was  to  the  mind  of  Luke.  When,  finally,  we  con- 
sider the  inieriial  ])erfection  of  his  whole  narrative,  the  admiralle  corresponrlenco 
between  the  emnlions  of  our  Lord  and  the  historical  event  which  gives  rise  to  them. 
have  we  not  a  sufficient  guarantee  for  the  reality  of  this  episode  V  As  the  account  of 
the  healing  of  the  lunatic  child  is  the  masterpiece  of  Maik,  this  description  of  the 
sending  of  the  seventy  disciples  is  the  pearl  of  Luke. 

4.  Tlie  Conxersation  with  the  Scribe,  mid  the  Parable  of  the  Samaritan  :  10  :  25-37. 
— Jesus  slowly  contiuues.His  journey,  stopping  at  each  locality.  The  most  varied 
scenes  follow  one  another  without  internal  relation,  and  as  circumstances  bring  Ihem. 
Weizsaeker,  starting  from  the  assumption  that  this  framework  is  not  historical,  has 
set  himself  to  seek  a  systematic  plan,  and  affects  to  find  throughout  an  order  accord- 
ing to  subjects.  Thus  he  would  have  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  connected 
•with  the  sending  of  the  seventy  by  its  object,  which  was  originally  to  prove  the  right 
of  the  evangelists,  to  whatever  nationality  they  might  belong.  But  where  in  the  par- 
able is  there  to  be  found  the  least  trace  of  correspondence  between  the  work  done  by 
the  good  Samaritan  and  the  function  of  the  evangelists  in  the  apostolic  church  ? 
How  could  the  original  tendency  fail  to  come  out  at  some  point  of  the  description  ? 
Holtzmann  thinks  that  in  what  follows  Luke  conjoins  two  distinct  accounts— that  of 
the  scribe  (vers.  25-28),  which  we  find  in  Mark  12  :  28  and  IVIatt.  22  :  35,  and  the  par- 
able of  the  good  Samaritan  taken  from  the  Logia.  The  connection  which  our  Gospel 
establishes  between  the  two  events  (ver.  29)  is  nothing  else  than  a  rather  unskilful 
combination  on  the  part  of  Luke.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  the  scritie  of  Luke  is  the 
same  as  that  spoken  of  by  ]Mark  and  Matthew.  It  is  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  days 
which  precede  the  pas.sion,  that  this  latter  appears  ;  and  above  all,  as  Meyer  acknowl- 
edges, the  matter  of  discussion  is  entirely  different.  The  scribe  of  Jerusalem  asks 
Jesus  which  is  the  greatest  commandment.  His  is  a  theological  C[uestion.  That  of 
Galilee,  like  the  rich  young  man,  desires  .lesus  to  point  out  to  him  the  means  of  sal- 
vation.    His  is  a  practical  question.     Was  there  but  one  Rabbin  in  Israel  who  could 


300  COMMENTAllY    ON    ST.  LUKE 

enter  into  discussion  with  Jesus  on  such  subjects?  It  is  possible,  no  doubt,  that  some 
exterucal  details  belonging  to  one  of  those  scenes  got  mixed  up  in  tradition  with  the 
narrative  of  the  other.  But  the  moral  contents  form  the  essential  matter,  and  they 
are  too  diverse  to  admit  of  being  identilied.  As  to  the  connection  which  ver.  29 
establishes  between  the  interview  and  the  parable  which  follows,  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  lesson  which  flows  from  the  parable  (vers.  36,  37),  and  about  the  authenticity  of 
which  there  is  no  doubt. 

Vers.  25-28.*  The  WorkicMeh  saves. — In  Greece  the  object  of  search  is  truth  ;  in 
Israel  it  is  salvation.  So  this  same  question  is  found  again  in  the  mouth  of  the  rich 
young  man.  The  expression  stood  up  shows  that  Jesus  and  the  persons  who  sur- 
rounded Him  were  seated.  Several  critics  think  this  "  scenery"  (Holtzmanu)  incon- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  a  journey,  as  if  we  had  not  to  do  here  with  a  course  of 
preaching,  and  as  if  Jesus  must  have  been,  during  the  weeks  this  journey  lasts,  con- 
stantly on  His  feet  !  The  test  to  which  the  scribe  wished  to  subject  Jesus  bore  either 
on  His  orthodoxy  or  on  His  theological  ability.  His  question  rests  on  the  idea  of  the 
merit  of  works.  Strictly,  on  hnving  done  xoliat  work  shall  I  certainly  inherit  .  .  .? 
In  the  term  to  inherit  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  possession  of  the  laud  of  Canaan, 
which  the  children  of  Israel  had  received  as  a  heritage  from  the  hand  of  God,  and 
which  to  the  Jewish  mind  continued  to  be  the  type  of  the  Messianic  blessedness. 
The  question  of  Jesus  distinguishes  between  the  contents  (r/)  and  the  text  (ttcSs)  of 
the  law.  It  has  been  thought  that,  while  saying.  How  readest  tlwu  ?  Jesus  pointed 
to  the  phylactery  attached  to  the  scribe's  dress,  and  on  which  passages  of  the  law 
were  written.  But  at  ver.  28  we  should  find  thoio  hast  well  read,  instead  of  iliou  hast 
answered  right.  And  it  cannot  be  proved  that  those  two  passages  were  united  on  the 
phylacteries.     The  first  alone  appears  to  have  figured  on  them. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  scribe  instantly  quotes  the  first  part  of  the  summary 
of  the  law,  taken  from  Deut.  6:5;  for  the  Jews  were  required  to  repeat  this  sentence 
morning  and  evening.  As  to  the  second,  taken  from  Lejj.  19  :  18,  we  may  doubt 
whether  he  had  the  readiness  of  mind  to  join  it  immediately  with  the  first,  and  so  to 
compose  this  magnificent  nsume  of  the  substance  of  the  law.  In  Mark  12  and  Matt. 
23  it  is  Jesus  Himself  who  unites  those  two  utterances.  It  is  probable,  as  Bleek 
thinks,  that  Jesus  guided  the  scribe  by  a  few  questions  to  formulate  this  answer. 
Ver.  26  has  all  the  appearance  of  the  opening  of  a  catechetical  course.  The  first  part 
of  the  summary  includes  four  terms  ;  in  Hebrew  there  are  only  three— n^,  heart; 
lyDJ.  sonl ;  nxo.  might.  The  LXX.  also  have  only  three,  but  they  translate  n^, 
heart,  by  dtavot'a,  mind  ;  and  this  is  the  word  which  appears  in  Luke  as  the  fourth 
term.  In  Matthew  there  are  three  :  Siavoia'i?,  the  last  ;  in  Mark,  four  :  6v'vs6ii  takes 
the  place  of  d^avoi'a,  and  is  put  second.  Kcxpdux,  the  heart,  in  Mark  and  Luke  is 
foremost  ;  it  is  the  most  general  term  :  it  denotes  in  Scripture  the  central /ocws  from 
which  all  the  rays  of  the  moral  life  go  forth  ;  and  that  in  their  three  principal  direc- 
tions— the  powers  of  feeling,  or  the  affections,  "[l?CJ-  ^''^^  *''^'^>  JQ  ^^*^  sense  of  feeling  ; 
the  active  powers,  the  impulsive  aspirations,  "IIXSJ,  the  might,  the  will  ;  and  the 
intellectual  powers,  analytical  or  contemplative,  8tavo{a,  mind.  The  difference 
between  the  heart,  which  resembles  the  trunk,  and  the  three  branches,  feeling,  will, 
and  understanding,  is  emphatically  marked,  in  the  Alex,  variation,  by  the  substitu- 

*  Ver.  27.  i*.  B.  D.  A.  Z.  some  Mnn.  It""'',  read,  ev  oXrj  rr]  ipvxv,  f  ^^^f  ^7 
idxvEiy  £v  oXr^  rrj  diavuia,  instead  of  £|  with  the  genitive. 


cnAi".  X.  :  25-;5r.  307 

tioB  of  the  proposition  h',  in,  for  U,  with  (from),  in  ilw.  three  lust  nuniheis.  Moral 
life  proceeds  from  the  heart,  and  mauifesls  itself  without,  in  the  liirue  forms  of 
activity  indicated.  The  impulse  Godvvaid  proceeds/zw/t  the  heart,  and  is  realized  in 
the  life  through-  the  atTecliou,  which  feeds  on  thai  supreme  object  ;  through  the  will, 
■which  conseciates  itself  actively  to  the  accomplishment  of  His  will  ;  and  through  liie 
m:nd,  which  pursues  the  track  of  His  thoughts,  in  all  His  works.  The  secoml  pait 
of  the  summur}'  is  the  corollary  of  the  first,  and  cannot  be  realized  except  in  conn(;c- 
tion  with  it.  Nothing  but  the  reigning  love  of  God  can  so  divest  the  individual  of 
ocvotion  to  hi?  own  person,  liiat  the  ego  of  his  neighbor  .';hall  rank  in  his  eyes  exactly 
on  the  same  level  as  his  own.  The  pattern  must  be  loved  above  all,  if  the  image  in 
others  is  to  appear  to  us  as  worthy  of  esteem  and  love  as  ui  ourselves.  Thus  to  love 
is,  as  Jesus  says,  tue  path  to  life,  or  rather  it  is  life  itself.  God  has  no  higher  life 
than  that  of  love.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  therefore  not  a  simple  accommodation  to 
the  legal  point  of  view.  The  work  which  saves,  or  salvation,  is  really  loving.  The 
gospel  does  not  differ  from  the  lavv  in  its  aim  ;  it  is  distinguished  from  it  only  by  its 
indication  of  means  and  the  communication  of  strength. 

Vers.  29-37.  2'he  good  Samaritan. — How  is  such  love  to  be  attained  ?  This  would 
have  been  the  question  put  by  the  scribe,  had  he  been  in  the  state  of  soul  which 
Paul  describes  Rom.  7,  and  which  is  the  normal  preparation  for  faith.  He  would 
Lave  confessed  his  impotence,  and  repeated  the  question  in  a  yet  deeper  sen.?c  than  at 
the  beginning  of  tlie  interview  :  What  shall  1  do  ?  What  shall  I  do  in  order  to  love 
thus?  But  insteail  of  that,  feeling  himself  condemned  by  the  holiness  of  the  law 
which  he  has  himself  formally  expressed,  he  takes  advantage  of  his  ignorance,  in 
other  words,  of  the  obscurity  of  the  letter  of  the  law,  to  excuse  himself  for  not  having 
observed  it  :  "  What  does  the  word  neighbor  mean  ?  How  fur  does  its  application 
reach  ?"  So  long  as  one  does  not  know  exactly  what  this  expression  signities,  it  is 
quite  impossible,  h8  means,  to  fulfil  the  commandment.  Thus  the  remark  of  Luke, 
"  willing  <(;  j;/«^yi/ himself,"  finds  an  explanation  whi(;h  is  perfectly  natural.  The 
real  aim  of  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  is  to  show  the  scribe  that  the  answer 
to  the  theological  question,  which  he  thinks  good  to  propose,  is  written  by  nature  on 
every  right  heart,  and  that  tn  know,  nothing  is  needed  but  the  trill  to  understand  it. 
But  Jesus  does  not  at  all  mean  thereby  tiiat  it  is  by  his  charitable  disposition,  or  by 
this  solitary  act  of  kindness,  that  the  Samaritan  can  obtain  salvation.  We  must  not 
forget  that  a  totally  new  question,  that  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  neighbor,  has  in- 
tervened. It  is  to  the  latter  question  that  Jesus  replies  by  the  parable.  He  lets  the 
scribe  understand  that  this  question,  proposed  by  him  as  so  difficult,  is  resolved  by  a 
right  heart,  without  its  ever  i)roposing  it  at  all.  This  ignorant  Samaritan  naturally 
((pvaei,  Rom.  3  :  14)  possessed  the  light  which  the  Rabbins  had  not  found,  or  had 
lost,  in  their  theological  lucubtations.  Thus  was  condemned  the  excuse  which  he 
had  dared  to  advance.  May  we  not  suppose  it  is  from  sayings  such  as  this  that  Paul 
has  derived  his  teaching  regarding  the  laic  written  iri  the  li£art,  and  regarding  its 
partial  observance  by  the  Gentiles,  Rom.  2  :  14-lG  ? 

Vers.  29-32.*  The  Priest  and  the  Lecite. — Lightfoot  has  proved  that  the  Rabbins 
did  not,  in  general,  regard  as  their  neighbors  those  who  were  not  members  of  the 

*  Ver.  29.  The  Mss.  arc  divided  between  diKoiow  (T.  R.)  and  (WKmuoai  (Alex.). 
Ver.  30.  E.  G.  H.  T.  V.  A.  A.  several  jVlnn.  It"''*).  Vg.,  £^e(^vaai>  instead  of  eKihonvrei. 
it.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  omit  -vyxaiovTa.  Ver.  32.  !*'".  B.  Ij.  X.  Z.  omit  yevouevoi. 
!*.   1).  r.  ^.  several  Mnn.  Vss.  lerid  uvrov  after  i<^ui\ 


308  COMilENTARY    ON   ST.  LUKE. 

Jewish  uation.  Perhaps  the  subject  afforded  matter  for  learned  debates  ia  their 
schools.  Tlie  word  TvXr/aiop,  beiug  without  article  here,  might  be  taken  in  strictness 
as  au  adverb.  It  is  simpler  to  regard  it  as  the  well-known  substantive  6  Kh'/aiov.  The 
ml,  and,  introducing  the  answer,  brings  it  into  relation  with  the  preceding  question 
which  called  it  forth.  The  word  vnoXa3iJv,  rejoining,  which  does  not  occur  again  in 
the  N.  T.,  is  put  for  the  ordinary  term  arroKpiSet!; ,  aasicering,  to  give  more  gravity  to 
what  follows.  The  mountainous,  and  for  the  most  part  desert  coimtry,  traversed  by 
the  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  was  far  from  safe.  Jerome  {ad  Jerem.  3  :  2)  re- 
lates that  in  his  lime  it  was  infested  by  hordes  of  Arabs.  The  distance  between  the 
two  cities  is  seven  leagues.  The  Kui,  also,  before  kaSvaavTei,  ver.  30,  supposes  a  first 
act  which  is  self-understood,  the  relieving  him  of  his  purse.  There  is  a  sort  of  irony 
in  the  Kara  avyavfuav,  by  chance.  It  is  certainly  not  by  accident  that  the  narrator 
brings  those  two  personages  on  the  scene.  The  preposition  avri  in  uvTLKapi}/Me,  he 
passed  by,  might  denote  a  curve  made  in  an  opposite  direction  ;  but  it  is  simpler  to 
understand  it  in  the  sense  of  over  against.  In  view  of  such  a  spectacle,  they  pass  on. 
Comp.  the  antithesis  npoaeWuv,  having  gone  to  him,  ver.  34. 

Vers.  33-35.*  The  Samaritan.— Fox  the  sake  of  contrast,  Jesus  chooses  a  Samari- 
tan, a  member  of  that  half  Gent  ile  people  who  were  separated  from  the  Jews  by  au  old 
national  hatred.  In  the  matter  about  which  priests  are  ignorant,  about  which  the 
scribe  is  still  disputing,  this  simple  and  right  heart  sees  clearly  at  the  first  glance. 
His  neighbor  is  the  human  being,  wiioever  he  may  be,  with  whom  God  brings  him 
into  contact,  and  who  has  need  of  his  help.  The  term  ddsvuv,  as  he  journeyed,  con- 
veys the  idea  that  he  miglit  easily  have  thought  himself  excused  from  the  duty  of 
compassion  toward  this  stranger.  In  every  detail  of  the  picture,  ver.  34,  there 
breathes  the  most  tender  Ytxty  {kanlayxviafir])-  Oil  and  wine  always  formed  part  of  the 
provision  for  a  journey.  We  see  from  what  follows  that  ■Kav^o)(E'iov  signifies  not  a 
simple  caravansary,  but  a  real  inn,  where  people  were  received  tor  payment.  'Ett^, 
ver.  35,  should  be  understood  as  in  Acts  3:1:  Toward  the  morrow,  that  is  to  say,  at 
daybreak.  The  term  e^eXOuv,  wlien  he  departed,  shows  that  he  was  now  on  horse- 
back, ready  to  go.  Two  pence  are  equal  to  about  Is  M..  After  having  l)rought  the 
wounded  man  the  length  of  the  hostelry,  he  might  have  regarded  himself  as  dis- 
charged from  all  responsil)ility  in  regard  to  him,  and  given  him  over  to  the  care  of 
his  own  countrymen,  saying:  "  He  is  your  neiglibor  rather  than  mine."  But  the 
compassion  which  constrained  him  to  begin,  obliges  him  to  finish.  What  a  master- 
piece is  this  portrait  !  What  a  painter  was  its  author,  and  what  a  narrator  was  he 
who  has  thus  transmitted  it  to  us,  undoubtedly  in  all  its  original  freshness  ! 

Vers.  36,  37.f  The  Moral. — The  question  with  which  Jesus  obliges  the  scribe  to 
make  application  of  the  parable  may  seem  badly  put.  According  to  the  theme  of 
discussion:  "  Who  is  my  neighl)or  ?"  (ver.  29),  it  would  seem  that  He  should  have 
jisked  :  Whom,  then,  wilt  thou  regard  as  thy  neighbor  to  guide  thee  to  him,  as  the 
Samaritan  was  guided  to  thy  compatriot  ?  But  as  the  term  neighbor  implies  the  idea 
of  reciprocity,  Jesus  iias  the  right  of  reversing  the  expressions,  and  He  does  so  not 
without  reason.     Is  it  not  more  effective  to  ask  :  By  whom  should  I  like  to  be  suc- 

*  Ver.  33.  ».  B.  L.  Z.  3  Mnn.  omit  avTov  after  i()uv.  Ver.  35.  ».  B.  D.  L.  X.  Z 
some  Mnn.  Syr,  It.  omit  EieTiBuv.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syi'^"'.  It"''*!,  omit  avru 
after  eltev. 

t  Ver.  36.  !*.  B.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  ow  after  r^s.  Ver.  37.  The  Mss.  vary 
between  ow  (T.  R.)  and  Se  (Alex.)  after  eltte. 


CHAP.  X.  :  33-42.  300 

cored  in  distress  ?  than  Whom  should  1  assist  in  case  of  distress  ?  To  the  first  ques- 
tion, the  leply  is  nut  doubtful  Self-regard  coniiuu;  to  the  aid  of  conscience,  all  will 
answer  :  By  everybody.  The  scribe  is  quite  alive  to  this.  He  cannot  escape,  when 
he  is  brought  face  to  face  with  the  question  in  this  form.  Only,  as  his  heart  refuses 
to  pronounce  tlie  word  Samaritan  with  praise,  he  paia[ihrases  the  odious  name.  On 
the  use  of  ^f ni,  ver.  37,  see  on  1  :  58.  In  tiiis  tinal  declaration,  Jesus  contrasts  the 
il dug  of  the  Samaritan  with  tUe  vain  casuistry  of  the  Rabl)ins.  But  while  saying.  Do 
thou  It/ccirise,  He  does  not  at  all  add,  as  at  ver.  28,  (i)id  tlujii  sltdlt  lire.  For  benefi- 
cence dues  not  give  life  or  salvation.  Were  it  even  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the 
second  part  of  the  sum  of  the  law,  we  may  not  forget  the  first  part,  the  realization  of 
which,  thougii  not  less  essential  to  salvation,  may  remain  a  strange  thing  to  the  man 
of  greatest  beneficence.  But  what  is  certain  is,  that  the  man  who  in  his  conduct 
contradicts  the  law  of  nature,  is  on  the  way  opposed  to  that  which  leads  to  faith  and 
salvation  (.John  3  :  19-21). 

The  Fathers  have  dwelt  with  pleasure  on  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  this  para- 
ble :  Tlie  wounded  man  representing  humanity  ;  the  brigands,  Ihe  devil  ;  the  priest 
and  Levite,  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  Samaritan  is  Jesus  Himself  ;  the  oil  and 
wine,  divine  grace  ;  the  ass,  the  body  of  Christ  ;  the  inn,  the  Church  ;  Jerusalem, 
paiailise;  the  expected  return  of  the  Samaritan,  the  final  advent  of  Christ.  This 
exegesis  rivalled  that  of  the  Gnostics. 

5.  Martha  and  Mary :  10  :  38-43  —Here  is  one  of  the  most  exquisite  scenes 
•which  Gospel  tradition  has  preserved  to  us  ;  ir  has  been  transmiited  by  Luke  alone. 
What  surprises  us  in  the  narrative  is,  the  place  which  it  occupies  in  the  middle  of  a 
journey  throush  Galilee.  On  the  one  hand, the  expression  ev  raJ  iropeveaOaL  aiirovi,  as 
they  we?it,  indicates  that  we  have  a  continuation  of  the  same  journey  as  began  at 
9  :  51  ;  on  the  other,  Ihe  knowledge  which  we  have  of  Maitha  and  Mary,  John  11,  does 
not  admit  of  a  doubt  that  the  event  transpired  in  Judea  at  Bethany,  nrar  Jerusalem. 
Hengstenberg  supposes  that  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters  dwelt  first  in  Galilee,  and 
afterward  came  to  settle  in  Judea.  But  the  interval  between  autumn  and  the  follow- 
ing spring  is  too  short  to  allow  of  such  a  change  of  residence.  In  John  11  :  1,  Beth- 
any is  called  the  town  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha,  a  phrase  which  assumes  that 
they  had  lived  there  for  a  length  of  time.  The  explanation  is  therefore  a  forced  one. 
There  is  another  more  naluml.  In  ,Tohn  10  tliere  is  indicated  a  short  visit  of  Jisus  to 
Judea  in  the  month  of  December  of  that  year,  at  the  feast  of  dedication.  Was  not 
that  then  the  time  when  the  visit  took  place  which  is  here  recorded  by  Luke?  Jesus 
must  have  interrupted  His  evangelistic  journey  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  perhaps  while  the 
seventy  disciples  were  carrying  out  their  preparatory  mission.  After  that  short  ap- 
pearance in  the  capital,  He  returned  to  put  Himself  at  the  head  of  the  caravan,  to 
visit  the  places  where  the  Jisciples  had  announced  His  coming.  Luke  himself  cer- 
tainly did  not  know  the  place  where  this  scene  transpired  (m  a  certain  villar/t)  ;  lie 
transmits  the  fact  to  us  as  he  found  it  in  his  sources,  or  as  he  had  received  it  by  oial 
tradition,  without  more  exact  local  indication.  Importance  had  been  attached  rather 
to  the  moral  teaching  than  to  the  external  circumstances.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
scene  of  the  preceding  paral)le  is  precisely  the  country  between  Jericho  and  Jerusa- 
lem.    Have  we  here  a  second  proof  of  a  journey  to  Judea  at  that  period  ? 

Here  we  must  recall  two  things  :  1.  That  the  oral  tradition  from  which  our  writ- 
ten compilations  (with  the  excei)tion  of  that  of  John)  are  derived,  was  formed  imme- 
diately after  the  ministry  of  our  Lord,  when  the  actors  in  the  Gospel  drama  were  yet 


310  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

alive,  and  that  it  was  obliged  to  exercise  great  discretion  in  regard  to  the  persons 
who  figured  in  it,  especiully  where  women  were  concerned  ;  hence  the  omission  of 
many  proper  names,  y.  That  it  is  John's  Gospel  which  has  restored  those  names  to 
the  Gospel  history  ;  but  that  at  the  time  when  Luke  wrote,  this  sort  of  imognilo  still 
continued. 

Vers.  38-40.*  Martha's  Complaint. — It  is  probably  the  indefinite  expression  of 
Luke,  into  a  certain  village,  which  John  means  to  define  by  the  words  :  Bethany,  the 
town  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha,  11  : 1  ;  as  also  the  words  of  Luke  5  :  39,  wldch  sat 
at  Jesus'  feet,  seem  to  be  alluded  to  in  those  others  :  But  Mary  sat  still  in  the  house, 
11  :  2U.  The  entire  conduct  of  Martha  and  Mary,  John  11,  reproduces  in  every  par- 
ticular the  characters  of  the  two  sisters  as  they  appear  from  Luke  10.  It  has  been 
supposed  that  Martha  was  the  wife  of  Simon  the  Leper  (]VIiilt.  26  :  6  ;  Mark  14  :  ?>), 
and  that  her  brother  and  sister  had  become  inmates  of  the  house.  All  this  is  pure 
hypothesis.  If  the  two  words  tj  and  ku'l,  "  which  also  sat,"  really  belong  to  the  text, 
Luke  gives  us  to  understand  that  Mary  began  by  seiving  as  we,l  as  Martha;  but 
that,  having  completed  her  task,  she  also  sat  to  listen,  rightly  considering  that,  with 
such  a  gue.st,  the  essential  thing  was  not  serving,  but  above  all  being  herself  served. 
Jesus  was  seated  with  His  feet  stretched  behind  Him  (7  :  38).  It  was  therefore  at 
His  feet  behind  Him  that  she  took  her  place,  not  to  lose  any  of  His  words  The 
term  nepiEmruTo  (teas  cumbered),  ver.  40,  denotes  a  distiaction  at  once  external  and 
moral.  The  word  knioTdaa,  came  to  Him,  especially  with  ^s  adversative,  but,  indi- 
cates a  sudden  suspension  of  her  feverish  activity  ;  at  the  sight  of  Jesus  and  her  sis- 
ter, who  was  listeuiug  to  Him  with  gladness,  Martha  stops  short,  takes  up  a  bold  al- 
titude, and  addresses  the  latter,  reproaching  her  for  her  selfishness,  and  Jesus  for  His 
partiality,  implied  in  the  words.  Dost  Thou  not  caref  Nevertheless,  by  the  very 
word  which  she  uses,  KaTelnre,  liath  left  me  (this  reading  is  preferable  to  the  imper- 
fect KarpELTve),  she  acknowledges  that  Mary  up  till  then  had  taken  part  in  serving. 
In  the  compound  Gvi>avn?Mu3di>EcOai  three  ideas  are  included — charging  one's  self  with 
a  burden  (the  middle)  for  another  (ai'Ti),  and  sharing  it  with  him  (aiiv). 

Vers.  41,  43. f  The  Ansioer, — Jesus  replies  to  the  reproach  of  jVIartha  by  charging 
her  with  exaggeration  in  the  activity  whicli  she  is  putting  forth.  If  she  has  so  much 
trouble,  it  is  because  she  wishes  it.  Mepif^v^v,  to  be  careful,  refers  to  moral  preoccu- 
pation ;  TvpSd'^^eaOai,  to  be  troubled,  to  external  agitation.  The  repetition  of  Martha's 
name  in  the  answer  of  Jesus  is  intended  to  bring  her  back  gent  I}',  but  firmly,  from 
her  dissipation  of  mind.  The  expression  in  which  Jesus  justifies  His  reinike  is  at 
once  serious  and  playful.  According  to  the  received  reading.  One  thing  only  is  need- 
ful, the  thought  might  be  :  "A  single  dish  is  sufficient."  But  as  it  was  certainly  not 
a  lesson  on  simplicity  of  food  that  Jesus  wished  to  give  here,  we  must  in  that  case 
admit  a  double  reference,  like  that  which  is  so  often  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
(John  4  :  31-34)  :  "  A  single  kind  of  nourishment  is  sufficient  for  the  body,  as  one 

*  Ver.  38.  i^.  B.  L.  Z.  Syr"'"'.,  ev  6e  tu  irorifvea^ai  instead  of  eyevero  (h  ev  tu 
iTopEveadac.  Hi.  C.  L.  Z.,  oiKiav  instead  of  oikoi'.  ii*.  L.  Z.  omit  avrrji.  B.  omits  ftS 
.  .  .  avTTji.  Ver.  39.  !*.  L*.  Z.  omit  ??.  I).  It""'!,  omit  mi  after  ?/.  Instead  of 
TrapaKaOiaaaa  (T.  R.),  i^.  A.  B.  C.  L.  Z.,  'TrapaKaOeGOeiaa.  Instead  of  napa,  the  same, 
npos.  Instead  of  Irjaov,  the  same,  Kvpiov.  Ver.  40.  Instead  of  KarEAnrev,  15  Mjj. 
KaTElEiTTEV.     D.  L.  Z. ,  eiTTov  iostcad  of  enze. 

f  Ver.  41,  is*.  B.  L.  It"''"!.  Vg..  o  Kvpios  instead  of  o  Irjaovi.  !*.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  6opv3a(r) 
instead  of  rvpSaO],  Ver.  43.  Si.  B.  L.  3  Mnn.,  oTiiyuv  6e  eart  ;^p£ta  rj  evoi  instead  of 
Evoi  (h  EG71  xpct^i- 


CHAT.    x.  :  oS— 10  ;  XI.  :  1-Ju.  ;jil 

ciilj'  is  necessary  for  the  soul."  This  is  probably  the  meuniDg  of  the  Ale.x.  reading  : 
"  Tliure  needs  l)ut  lillle  (for  the  body),  or  even  but  one  thing  (for  the  soul)."  Tliere 
is  sublillj'  in  this  residing  ,  too  much  perhaps.  It  has  against  it  15  Mjj.  the  Peschito 
and  a  large  number  of  the  copies  of  the  Itala.  It  is  simpler  to  hold  tliat  by  the  ex- 
jiression  one  thing,  Jesus  meant  to  designate  spiritual  nourishment,  the  divine  word, 
but  not  ■without  an  .illusion  to  tlio  simplicity  in  physical  life  which  naturally  results 
from  tlie  preponderance  given  to  a  higher  interest.  The  expression  ayiJjii  /itpii,  tli<d 
good  ]xirf,  alludes  to  the  portion  of  honor  at  a  feast.  The  pronoun  yni,  ir/iich  //■■i 
foir/i,  brings  out  the  relation  between  the  excellence  of  tliis  portion,  and  the  impoosi- 
biiity  of  its  being  lost  to  him  wl)o  has  chosen  it,  and  Avho  perseveres  in  his  choice. 
In  lliis  defence  of  Mary's  conduct  there  is  included  an  invitation  to  Martha  to  imitate 
l)cr  at  once. 

The  t wo  sisters  have  often  been  regarded  as  representing  two  equally  legitimate 
aspects  of  the  Christian  life,  inward  devotion  and  practical  activity.  But  Martha 
does  not  m  the  least  represent  external  activity,  such  as  Jesus  ap|)roves.  Her  very 
distraction  proves  that  the  motive  of  her  work  is  not  pure,  and  tliat  her  self-impor- 
tance as  hostess  has  a  larger  share  in  it  than  it  ought.  On  the  other  hand,  Mary  as 
little  represents  a  morbid  quietism,  requiring  to  be  implemented  by  the  work  of  an 
active  life.  Mary  served  as  long  as  it  appeared  to  lier  needful  to  do  so.  Thereafter 
she  understood  also  that,  when  wc  have  the  singidar  privilege  of  welcoining  a  Jetus 
under  our  roof  it  is  infinitely  more  important  to  seek  to  receive  than  to  give.  Be- 
sides some  months  later  (John  12  :  i!  ct  scq.)  Mary  clearly  showed  that  when  action  or 
giving  was  required  she  was  second  to  none. 

The  Tilbingen  school  has  discovered  depths  in  this  narrative  unknown  till  it  ap- 
peared. In  the  pei-son  of  Martha,  Luke  seeks  to  stigmatize  Judaizing  Christianity, 
that  of  legal  w^orks  ;  in  the  person  of  Mary  he  has  exalted  the  Christianity  of  Paul, 
that  of  justification  without  works  and  by  faith  alone.  What  extraordinary  preju- 
dice must  prevail  in  a  mind  which  can  to  such  a  degree  mistake  the  exquisite  sim- 
plicity of  this  story  !  Supposing  that  it  I'eally  had  such  an  origin,  would  not  this 
dogmatic  importation  have  infalliblj'  discolored  both  the  matter  and  form  of  the  nar- 
rative V  A  tune  will  come  when  those  judgments  of  modern  criticism  will  appear 
like  the  wanderings  of  a  diseased  imagination. 

6.  Prayer :  11  : 1-13. — Continuing  still  to  advance  leisurely,  the  Lord  remained 
faithful  to  His  habit  of  prayer.  He  was  not  satisfied  with  that  constant  direction  of 
soul  toward  His  Father,  to  which  the  meaning  of  the  command,  Pray  icitliout  ceatt- 
ing,  is  often  reduced.  There  were  in  His  life  special  times  and  positive  acts  of 
prayer.  This  is  proved  by  the  following  words  :  When  He  ceased  praying.  It  was 
after  one  of  those  times,  which  no  doubt  had  always  something  solemn  in  them  for 
those  who  surrounded  Him,  that  one  of  His  disciples,  profiting  by  the  circum.-lance, 
asked  Him  to  give  a  more  special  directory  on  the  subject  of  prayer.  Ilollzmann  is 
just  enough  to  protest  against  this  preface,  ver.  1,  being  involved  in  the  wholesale  re- 
jection which  modern  criticism  visits  on  those  short  introductions  of  Luke.  He 
finds  a  proof  of  its  authenticity  in  the  detail  so  precisely  staled  :  "  Teach  us  to  pray, 
as  John  also  taught  his  disciples."  It  is,  according  to  him,  one  of  the  cases  in  which 
the  historical  situation  was  expressly  stated  in  the  Logia.  The  Lord's  Prayer,  as 
well  as  the  instructions  about  prayer  which  follow,  are  placed  by  Matthew  in  the 
course  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Moimt  (chap.  6  and  7).  Gess  thinks  that  this  model  of 
prayer  may  have  been  twice  given  forth.     Why  might  not  a  disciple,  s<mie  months 


313  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  have  put  to  Jesus  the  request  which  led  Him  to  re- 
peat it  V  And  as  to  the  context  in  Matthew,  Luke  20  :  47  proves  that  mu^ch  speaking 
belonged  us  much  to  the  prayers  of  tlie  Pharisees  as  to  those  of  the  heathen.  That  is 
true  ;  but  the  prolixity  to  which  the  Lord's  prayer  is  opposed  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  by  means  of  which  the  worshipper  hopes  lo  obtaiu  a  hearing,  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  that  ostentation  before  men  which  Jesus  stigmatizes  in  Matt.  6  as 
characterizing  the  righteousness  of  the  Pharisees.  And  the  repetition  of  this  raodel 
of  prayer,  though  not  impossible,  is  far  from  probable,  What  we  have  here,  there- 
fore, is  one  of  those  numerous  elements,  historically  alien  to  the  context  of  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount,  Mhich  are  found  collected  in  this  exposition  of  the  new  right- 
eousness. The  reflections  regarding  prayer.  Matt.  7,  belong  to  a  context  so  broken, 
that  if  the  connections  alleged  by  commentators  show  to  a  demonstration  what  asso- 
ciation of  ideas  the  compiler  has  followed  in  placing  them  here,  thej'  cannot  prove 
that  Jesus  could  ever  have  taught  in  such  a  manner.  In  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  the 
connection  between  the  different  parts  of  this  discourse  is  as  simple  as  the  occasion  is 
natural.  Here,  again,  we  find  the  two  evangelists  such  as  we  have  come  to  know 
them  :  Matthew  teaches,  Luke  relates. 

This  account  embraces  :  1st.  The  model  of  Christian  prayer  (vers.  1-4) ;  2d.  An 
encouragement  to  pray  thus,  founded  on  the  certainty  of  being  heard  (vers.  5-18). 

1st.  Vers.  1-4.*  The  Model  of  Prayer. — "  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  as  He  was 
praying  in  a  certain  place,  when  He  ceased,  one  of  His  disciples  said  unto  Him, 
Lord,  teach  us  to  pray,  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples.  2.  And  He  said  unto  them. 
When  ye  pray,  s^j,  Father,  hallowed  be  thy  name  ;  Thy  kingdom  come  ;  3.  Give 
us  day  by  day  our  needful  bread  ;  4.  And  forgive  us  our  sins,  for  we  also  forgive 
every  one  that  is  indebted  to  us  ;  and  lead  us  not  into  temptation."  It  was  the  cus- 
tom among  the  Jews  to  pray  regularly  thi'ee  times  a  da3^  John  had  kept  up  the 
practice,  as  well  as  that  of  fasting  (ver.  33)  ;  and  it  was  doubtless  with  a  view  to  this 
daily  exercise  that  he  had  given  a  form  to  his  disciples.  In  the  words,  when  ye  pray, 
.tay,  the  term  upoaevxsofjai,  to  pray,  denotes  the  state  of  adoration,  and  the  word  say, 
the  prayer  formally  expressed.  It  is  evident  that  this  order,  when  ye  pray,  say,  does 
not  mean  that  the  formula  was  to  be  slavishly  repeated  on  every  occasion  of  praj^er  ; 
it  was  the  type  which  was  to  give  its  impression  to  every  Christian  prayer,  but  in  a 
free,  varied,  and  spontaneous  manner.  The  distinctive  characteristic  of  this  formu- 
lary is  the  filial  spirit,  which  appears  from  the  first  in  the  invocation.  Father  ;  then 
in  the  object  and  order  of  the  petitions.  Of  the  five  petitions  which  the  Lord's 
Prayer  includes  in  Luke,  two  bear  directly  on  the  cause  of  God — they  stand  at  the 
head  ;  three  to  the  wants  of    man — they  occupy  the  second  place.     This  absolute 

*  Ver.  ].  !**.  A.  some  Mnn.  Syr'="^  ItP'^'q^e  omit  nai  before  luawj]';.  Ver.  2.  The 
words  r]fj(i)v  £v  tolS  ovpnvoic  are  omitted  by  !!i.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  Tert.  ;  they  are  found 
in  T.  R.,  according  lo  18  Mjj.  almost  all  the  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Ver.  3.  Instead  of  e1(jetu 
7/  0aai7^ELa  gov,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Maximus  Confessor  seem  to  have  read,  e'/^sto 
ayiov  TTVEVfxa  aov  E(p'  Jinas  k(u  KaOapiaaru  rjuni  ;  others  to  have  added  to  the  end  of  the 
petition  an  explanation  like  this  :  mvr'  eotl  to  TvvEvua  ayiov.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr"'^ 
Jt!iiiq_  Yg  Tert.  Aug.  omit  the  words  yEvrjOvro  .  .  .  7?;?,  which  are  read  by  the  T.  H. 
with  19  Mjj.  almost  all  the  Mnn  Syr^-^*".  Itpi«'-iq«'^  ;  Tert.  (de  Oratione)  places  them  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  petitions.  Ver.  3.  Instead  of  7?/'wv  Marcion  appears  to 
have  read  aov.  Ver.  4.  ii.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  Vg.  Grig.  Cyril.  Tert.  Aug.  omit  the 
words  alX  .  .  .  -rrovripov,  which  are  found  in  the  T.  R.  with  17  Mjj.  almost  all  the 
Mnn.  Syr.  ltpi"iq"«. 


CHAT.  XI.  :  1-4.  :]i:\ 

piiorit}-  given  to  divino  interests  implies  ;in  eniptyins^  of  ourselves,  a  heavcnl}'  love 
aii.l  /.eiil  which  arc  not  natural  to  man.  auil  whii^h  suppose  in  us  the  heart  of  a  truo 
chil.l  of  God,  occupied  above  ail  things  with  the  interests  of  his  heavenly  Falher. 
After  haviug  thus  forgotten  himself,  and  become  lost  as  it  were  in  God,  the  Chrislian 
cona-s  l)ack  to  himself  ;  but  as  it  is  in  God  that  he  finds  himself  again,  he  does  not 
find  himself  alone.  He  contemplates  himself  as  a  member  of  God's  f  mily,  and  says 
(h'jnceforlh  :  we,  and  not  /.  77te  f niter nal  spirit  becomes,  in  the  second  part  of  his 
prayer,  the  complement  of  the  filial  spirit  which  dictated  the  first  ;  intercession  is 
blended  with  personal  supplication.  The  Loid's  Prayer  is  thus  nothing  else  than  the 
summary  of  the  law  put  into  practice  ;  and  this  summary  so  realized  in  the  secrecy 
of  the  heart,  will  naturally  pass  thence  into  the  entire  life. 

It  appears  certain  from  the  mss.  that  in  tlie  text  of  Luke  the  invocation  ought  to 
be  reduced  to  the  single  word  Futher.  The  following  words,  tDhich  art  in  heaven,  are 
a  gloss  taken  from  Matthew,  but  agreeable,  no  doubt,  to  the  real  lenor  of  our  Lord's 
saying.  In  this  title  Father  there  is  expressed  the  doubl,?  feeling  of  submission  and 
confidence.  The  name  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  Lsa.  G3  :  16  (comp.  Ps. 
103  :  lo),  and  is  employed  only  in  reference  to  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The  pious 
Israelite  felt  himself  the  servant  %i  Jehovah,  not  His  child.  The  filial  relationship 
"which  the  believer  sustains  to  God  rests  on  the  incarnation  and  revelation  of  tlie  Son. 
Luke  10  :  22  :  "  He  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.  ..."  Comp,  John  1  :  12. 
The  first  two  petitions  relate,  not  to  the  believer  himself,  or  the  world  which  sur- 
rounds him,  but  to  the  honor  of  God  ;  it  is  the  child  of  God  who  is  praying.  Wet- 
stein  has  collected  a  large  number  of  passages  similar  to  those  two  petitions,  derived 
from  Jewish  formularies.  The  Old  Testament  itself  is  filled  with  like  texts.  But 
the  originalit}'  of  this  first  part  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  is  not  in  the  words  ;  it  is  in  the 
filial  feeling  which  is  here  expressed  by  means  of  those  already  well-known  terms. 
The  name  of  God  denotes,  not  His  essence  or  His  revelation  as  is  often  said,  but 
rather  the  conception  of  God,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  the  \vorshipj*er  bears  in 
Lis  consciousness — His  reflection  in  the  soul  of  His  creatures.  Hence  the  fact  that 
this  name  dwells  completely  only  in  One  Being,  in  Him  who  is  the  adequate  image 
of  God.  and  who  alone  knows  Him  perfectly  ;  that  One  of  whom  God  sa^'.s,  Ex. 
23  :  21,  "  My  name  is  in  Him."  Hence  the  fact  that  this  name  can  become  holier 
than  it  is — be  hallowed,  renderedholy.  What  unworthy  conceptions  of  God  and  His 
character  still  reign  among  men  !  The  child  of  God  prays  Him  to  assert  His  holy 
character  effectually  in  the  minds  of  men,  in  order  that  all  impure  idolatry^  gross  or 
refined,  as  well  as  all  pharisaic  formalism,  may  forever  come  to  an  end,  and  that 
every  human  being  may  exclaim  with  the  seraphim,  in  rapt  adoration  :  Holt/,  holy, 
holy  !  (lsa.  6).  The  imper.  aor.  indicates  a  series  of  acts  by  which  this  result  shall  be 
brought  aliout. 

The  holy  image  of  God  once  shining  in  glory  within  the  depths  of  the  heart,  the 
kingdom  of  God  can  l)e  established  there.  For  God  needs  only  to  be  well  known  in 
order  to  reign.  The  term  kingdom  of  God  denotes  an  external  and  social  state  of 
things,  but  one  which  results  from  an  inward  and  individual  change.  This  petition 
expresses  (he  longing  of  the  child  of  God  for  that  reconciled  and  .sanctified  humanity 
within  the  bosom  of  which  the  will  of  the  Father  will  be  done  without  opposition. 
The  aor.  e/fjcru,  come,  comprises  the  whole  series  of  historical  facts  which  will  realize 
this  slate  of  things.  The  imperatives,  which  follow  one  another  in  the  Lord's  Prayer 
with  forcible  brevity,  express  the  certainty  of  being  heard. 


314  COMilEXTAnY    ox    ST.   LUKE. 

The  third  petition,  "  Tliy  will  be  .  ,  ."  which  is  found  in  the  T.  R.,  follow- 
ing several  mss.,  is  certainly  an  importation  from  Matthew.  It  is  impossible  to  dis- 
cover any  reason  whj^  so  many  iiss.  should  have  rejected  it  in  Luke.  In  Matthew  it 
expresses  the  state  of  tbiugs  which  will  result  from  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  over  humanity  so  admirably,  that  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  it 
belongs  to  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  .Jesus  uttered  it.  The  position  of  this  petition 
between  the  two  preceding  in  a  passage  of  Terlullian.  may  arise  either  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  variously  interpolated  in  Luke,  or  from  the  fact  that,  in  consequence  of 
the  eschatological  sense  which  was  given  to  the  term  kingdom  of  God,  it  was  thought 
right  to  close  the  first  part  of  the  prayer  with  the  petition  which  related  to  that  object. 
Ver.  3.  From  the  cause  of  God,  the  worshipper  passes  to  the  wants  of  God's  famili/. 
The  connection  is  this:  "And  that  we  maybe  able  ourselves  to  take  part  in  the 
divine  Avork  for  whose  advancement  we  pray,  Gi^e  us,  Forgive  us,"  etc.  In  order 
to  serve  God,  it  is  first  of  all  necessary  that  we  live.  The  Fathers  in  general  under- 
stood the  word  hread  in  a  spiritual  sense  ;  the  bread  of  life  (John  6)  ;  but  the  literal 
sense  seems  to  us  clearly  to  flow  from  the  very  general  nature  of  this  prayer,  which 
demands  at  lea«t  one  petition  relating  to  the  support  of  our  present  life.  Jesus,  who 
with  His  apostles  lived  upon  the  daily  gifts  of  His  Father,  understood  by  experience, 
better  perhaps  than  many  theologians,  the  need  which  His  disciples  would  have  of 
such  a  prayer.  Xo  poor  man  will  hesitate  about  the  sense  which  is  to  be  given  to 
this  petition.  The  word  t-iovoLoi  is  unknown  either  in  profane  or  sacred  Greek.  It 
appears,  says  Origen,  to  have  been  invented  by  the  evangelists.  It  may  be  taken  as 
derived  from  eTveiui,  to  be  imminent,  whence  the  participle  y  k-moijaa  {rjiiepa),  the  coming 
day  (Prov.  37  : 1  ;  Acts  7  :  26,  et  al.).  We  must  then  translate  :  "  Gire  us  day  by 
day  next  day's  bread."  This  was  certainly  the  meaning  given  to  the  petition  by  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  where  this  was  rendered,  according  to  Jerome  bj''  "^nQ  CH? 
to  morroio's  bread.  Founding  on  the  same  grammatical  meaning  of  i-mvaio?,  Athan- 
asius explains  it  :  "  The  bread  of  the  world  to  come."  But  those  two  meanings,  and 
especially  the  second,  are  pure  refinements.  The  first  is  not  in  keeping  with  Matt. 
6  :  34  :  "  Take  no  thought  for  the  morrow  ;  for  the  morrow  shall  take  thought  for 
the  things  of  itself."  Comp.  Ex.  1(5  ;  Id,  et  seg.  It  is  therefore  better  to  regard 
ETiLovaio^  as  a  compound  of  the  substantive  ovaia,  essence,  existence,  goods.  No  doubt 
£Tzi  ordinarily  loses  its  i  when  it  is  compounded  with  a  word  beginning  with  a  vowel. 
But  there  are  numerous  exceptions  to  the  rule.  Thus  knieiKiii,  eniovfioi  (Homer), 
ETriopKElv,  ETTLETTii  (Polyblus).  Aod  in  the  case  before  us,  there  is  a  reason  for  the 
irregularity  in  the  tacit  contrast  which  exists  between  the  word  and  the  analogous 
compound  TTepLovaLoi,  superfluous.  "  Give  us  day  by  day  bread  sufficient  for  our 
existence,  not  what  is  superfluous."  The  expression,  thus  understood,  exactly  cor- 
responds to  that  of  Proverbs  (30  :  8),  ■'pn  ^rby  foo^^  convenient  for  vie,  literally,  the 
bread  of  my  allowance,  in  which  the  term  r>^,  siatutum,  is  tacitly  opjiosed  to  the 
superfluity,  TrepLovaiov,  which  is  secretly  desired  by  the  human  heart  ;  and  it  is  this 
biblical  expression  of  which  Jesus  probably  made  use  in  Aramaic,  and  which  should 
serve  to  explain  that  of  our  passage.  It  has  been  inferred,  from  the  remarkable  fact 
that  the  two  evangelists  employ  one  aud  the  same  Greek  expression,  otherwise  alto- 
gether unknown,  that  one  of  the  evangelists  was  dependent  on  the  other,  or  that  both 
were  dependent  on  a  common  Greek  document.  But  the  verj'  important  differences 
which  we  observe  in  Luke  and  Matthew,  between  the  two  editions  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  contain  one  of  the  most  decisive  refutations  of  the  two  hypotheses.     What 


flT.VP.    XI.  :  3-4.  315 

■writer  should  have  taken  the  liberty  wilniM}'-  and  arbitrarily  to  introduce  such  modi- 
fications into  the  text  of  a  formulary*  bej^inniiig  with  the  words  :  "  When  ye  pray, 
say  .  .  ."  ?  The  differences  here,  still  more  than  anywhere  else,  must  be  invol- 
untary. It  must  therefore  bo  admitted  that  this  Greek  term  common  to  both  was 
chosen  to  translate  the  Aramaic  ex})ressinn,  at  the  time  when  the  priniilive  oral  tradi- 
tion was  reproduced  in  Greek  for  the  numeious  Jews  speakini"  that  language  who 
dwelt  in  Jerusalem  and  Palestine  (Acis  6  :  1,  ct  seq.  This  translation,  onee  fixed  in 
the  oral  tradition,  passed  thence  into  our  Gospels. 

Instead  of  il"j/l>i/  ih  y,  ]Matlhew  says  a>,/iei)ov,  (his  day.  Luke's  expression,  from  its 
very  generality,  does  not  answer  so  well  to  the  character  of  real  and  present  sup[)lica- 
lion.  Matthew's  form  is  therefore  to  be  preferred.  Besides,  Luke  em[)loys  the  pres- 
ent Siihv,  wliich,  in  connection  with  the  expression  day  by  day,  must  designate  the 
permanent  act :  "Give  ws  constantly  each  day's  bread."  The  aor.  JoS,  in  ^Matthew, 
in  connection  with  the  word  this  day,  designates  the  one  single  and  momentary  act, 
whicli  is  preferable.  What  a  reduction  of  human  requirements  to  their  minimitin, 
in  the  two  respects  of  quality''  (bread)  and  of  quantitj^  (suliicient  for  each  day)  ! 

Ver.  4.  Tlie  deepest  feeling  of  man,  after  that  of  Ids  dependence  for  his  very  ex- 
istence, is  that  of  his  guiltiness  ;  and  the  first  cmdiliou  to  enable  him  to  act  in  the 
way  whicli  is  indicated  by  tlie  fust  petition,  is  his  being  relieved  of  this  burden  b}' 
pardon.  For  it  is  on  pardrn  tiiat  the  union  of  the  soul  with  God  rests.  Instead  of 
the  word  sins,  JIatthew  in  the  first  clause  uses  debts.  Even^  neglect  of  duty  to  God 
reall}'  constitutes  a  debt  requiring  to  be  discharged  by  a  penalty.  In  the  second  prop- 
osition Luke  says  :  For  we  ourselves  also  {avroi)  ;  Matthew  :  as  we  also.  .  .  .  The 
idea  of  an  imprecation  on  ourselves,  in  the  event  of  our  refusing  pardon  to  him  who 
has  offended  us,  might  perhaps  be  found  in  the  form  of  Matthew,  but  not  in  that  of 
Luke.  Tlie  latter  does  not  even  include  tiie  notion  of  a  condition  ;  it  simply  ex- 
])iesses  a  motive  derived  from  the  manner  in  whieh  we  ourselves  act  in  our  humble 
sphere.  This  motive  must  undoubtedly  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as  that  of 
ver.  13  :  "  If  j-e  then,  being  evil,  Know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  chil- 
dren." "  All  evil  as  we  are,  we  yet  ourselves  use  the  right  of  grace  which  Ijelougs  to 
us,  by  remitting  debts  to  those  who  are  our  debtors  ;  how  much  more  wilt  not  Thou, 
Father,  who  art  goodness  itself,  use  Thy  right  toward  us  !"  And  this  is  proliably 
also  the  sen.se  in  which  we  should  understand  the  as  also  of  Matthew.  The  only 
difTerence  is,  that  what  Luke  alleges  as  a  motive  (for  also),  Matthew  states  as  a  point 
of  comparison  (as  aho'\. 

Luke's  very  absolute  expression.  We  forgive  every  one  that  is  indebted  to  us,  sup- 
poses the  believer  to  be  now  living  in  that  sphere  of  chariti''  which  Jesus  came  to 
cieate  on  the  earth,  and  the  princii)le  of  whicli  was  laid  down  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
!^Ioant.  The  term  usedbyjesns  might  be  applied  solely  to  material  debts  :  "  Forgive 
us  our  sins,  for  we  also  in  our  earthly  relations  relax  our  rights  toward  out  indigent 
debtors."  So  we  might  explain  Luke's  u.se  of  the  woid  sins  in  tlie  first  clause,  and 
cf  the  term  Ix^ei/.ovTi,  debtor,  in  the  second.  This  delicate  shade  would  be  lost  in  ]\lat- 
thcw's  form.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  by  the  words,  every  one  that  is  indebted  to 
us,  in  Luke,  we  are  to  understand  not  only  debtors  stiictly  so  called,  but  every  one 

*  Dr.  Alford  relies  upon  the  variations  as  proof  that  this  was  not  a  "  set  form 
developed  for  liturgi(;al  uses"  by  our  Lord.  This  is  all  the  more  weighty  a  contirm- 
ation  of  our  author's  view%  as  Dr.  Alford  might  be  naturally  wdling  to  fall  in  with 
such  a  view  as  Wordsworth's.— J.  H. 


olf;  CUM.MENTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

who  has  offended  us.  The  navri  is  explained  oerhaps  more  easily  in  this  wide  sense 
of  6<pEi'AovTL.  This  petition,  winch  supposes  the  Cunstian  always  penetrated  to  the 
last  {diiy  by  day,  ver.  3)  by  the  conviction  of  his  sins,  has  brought  duwa  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer  the  dislike  of  the  Plymouth  brethren,  who  regard  it  as  a  piayer  pro- 
vided ralli'jr  for  a  Jewish  than  a  Chiistiau  state.  But  comp.  1  John  1  :  D,  which  cer- 
tainly applies  to  believers  :  "  If  ice  confess  .  .  ."  The  absence  of  all  allusion  to 
the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  pardon  of  sins  is  a  very  sti iking  proof  of  the  tn- 
tiie  authenticity  of  this  formula,  both  in  Luke  and  Matthew.  If  Luke  in  particular 
had  put  into  it  anything  of  his  own,  even  the  least,  would  not  some  expression  bor- 
rowed from  the  theology  ot  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  have  inevitably  slipped  from 
his  pen  ? 

With  tlie  feeling  of  his  past  trespasses  there  succeeds  in  the  mind  of  the  Christian 
that  of  his  weakness,  and  the  fear  of  oli'ending  in  the  future.  He  therefore  passes 
naturally  from  sins  to  be  forgiven  to  sin  to  he  avoided.  For  he  thoroughly  appre- 
hends that  sanctification  is  the  suyjerstructure  to  be  raised  on  the  foundation  of  par- 
don. The  word  tempi  takes  two  meanings  in  Scripture — to  put  a  free  being  m  the 
position  of  deciding  for  himself  between  good  and  evil,  obedience  and  rebellion  ;  it  is 
in  this  sense  that  God  tempts  :  "  Gud  did  tempt  Abraham"  (Gen.  22  :  1)  ;  ur,  to  im- 
pel inwardly  to  evil,  to  make  sin  appear  in  a  light  so  seducing  that  the  fiail  and  de- 
ceived being  ends  by  yielding  to  it  ;  thus  it  is  that  Satan  tempts,  and  that,  according 
lo  Jas.  1  :  13,  God  cannot  tempt.  What  renders  it  difficult  to  understand  this  last  peti- 
tion is,  that  neither  of  the  two  senses  of  the  word  ^em/)<  appears  suitable  here.  If  we 
adopt  the  good  sense,  how  are  we  to  ask  God  to  spare  us  experiences  which  may  be 
necessary  for  the  development  of  o\ir  moral  being,  and  for  the  manifestation  of  His 
glorious  power  in  us  (.Jas.  1:3)?  If  we  accept  the  bad  sense,  is  it  not  to  calumniate 
God,  to  ask  Him  not  to  do  toward  us  an  act  decidedly  wicked,  diabolical  in  itself? 
The  solution  of  this  pioblem  depends  on  our  settluig  the  question  who  is  the  author  of 
the  temptations  anticipated.  Now  the  second  part  of  the  prayer  in  Matthew,  But 
deliver  us  from  the  evil,  leaves  no  doubt  on  this  pouit.  The  author  of  the  temptations 
to  which  this  petition  relates  is  not  God,  but  Satan.  The  phrase  {ivaai,  cnro,  rescue 
from,  is  a  military  teim,  denoting  the  deliverance  of  a  prisoner  who  had  fallen  into 
the  hands  of  an  enemy.  The  enemy  is  the  evil  one,  who  lays  his  snares  in  the  way  of 
the  faithful.  These,  conscious  of  the  danger  which  they  run,  as  well  as  of  their  ig- 
norance and  weakness,  pray  God  to  preserve  them  from  the  snares  of  the  adversary. 
The  word  slacjjiiiEiv  has  been  rendered,  to  expose  to,  or,  to  abandon  to  ;  but  these  trans- 
lations do  not  convey  the  force  of  the  Greek  term,  to  impel  into,  to  deliver  over  to.  GoA 
certainly  does  not  impel  to  evil  ;  but  it  is  enough  for  Him  to  withdraw  His  hand  that 
we  maj"^  find  ourselves  given  over  to  the  power  of  the  enemy.  It  is  the  TTapmhi^oruc, 
giving  vp,  of  which  Paul  speaks  (Rom.  1  ■  2-1,  26-28),  and  by  which  is  manifested  His 
wrath  against  the  Gentiles.  Thus  He  punishes  sin,  that  of  pride  in  particular,  by  the 
most  severe  of  chastisements,  even  sin  itself.  All  that  God  needs  thereto  is  not  to  act, 
no  more  to  guard  us  ;  and  man,  given  over  to  himself,  falls  into  the  power  of  the 
enemy  (2  Sam.  24  :  1,  comp.  with  1  Chron.  21  :  1).  Such  is  the  profound  conviction 
of  the  believer  ;  hence  his  prayer,  "  Let  me  do  nothing  this  day  which  would  foice 
Thee  for  a  single  moment  to  withdraw  Thy  hand,  and  to  give  me  over  to  one  of  the 
snares  which  the  evil  one  will  plant  in  my  way.  Keep  me  in  the  sphere  where  Thy 
holy  will  reigns,  and  wdiere  the  evil  one  has  no  access."  *    The  second  clause,  but 

*  This  is  what  a  pious  man  used  to  express  in  the  following  terms,  in  which  he 


ciiAi".    \i.  :  5-13.  317 

deUvcr  vs  .  .  .  is  in  Luke,  an  interpolation  derived  from  Matlhew.  Without  this 
ternuniilion  the  prayer  is  not  really  closeil  as  it  ought  to  be.  Here  again,  therefore, 
Mallliew  is  more  complete  than  Luke.  The  doxology  with  which  we  close  the  Lords 
Prayer,  is  not  fc.uud  In  any  Ms.  of  Luke,  and  is  wanting  in  the  oldest  copies  of  ]\lal- 
tliew.  It  IS  an  iippendix  due  to  the  liturgical  use  of  this  formulary,  and  which  has 
been  added  in  the  text  of  the  first  Gospel,  the  most  commonly  used  in  public  reading. 

The  Lord's  Prayer,  especially  in  the  form  given  by  Matlhew,  presents  to  us  a 
complete  whole,  composed  of  two  ascending  and  to  some  extent  parallel  series.  We 
think  that  we  have  established— l.s^  That  it  is  Luke  who  has  pre.served  to  us 
mt»^t  faithfully  the  situation  in  which  this  model  prayer  was  taught,  but  that  it 
is  Matlhew  who  has  preserved  the  terms  of  it  most  fully  and  exactly.  There  is  no 
contradiction, whatevi'r  ^L  Gess  may  think,  between  those  two  results.  2d.  That  the 
two  digests  can  neither  l)e  derived  the  one  from  the  other,  nor  both  ot  them  from  a 
comniun  document.  Bleek  himself  is  forced  here  to  admit  a  sepatate  source  for 
each  evangelist.  How,  indeed,  with  such  a  document,  is  it  possible  to  imagine  the 
capiicious  omissions  in  which  Luke  must  have  indulged,  or  the  arbitrary  additions 
•which  Matthew  must  have  alloweil  himself?  Holtzmann  thinks  that  Matthew  ampli- 
fied the  formulary  of  the  LfM/ia  reproduced  by  Luke,  with  the  view  of  raising  the 
number  of  petitions  to  the  (sacred)  number  of  nevcii.  But  ('/)  the  division  into  neve/t 
pelilions  is  a  liction  ;  it  corresponds  neither  with  the  evident  symmetry  of  the  two 
parts  of  the  prayer,  each  composed  of  thj-ee  petitinnj,  nor  with  the  true  meaning  of 
the  last  I'Ctitiou,  which,  conlrarj'  to  all  reason,  would  require  to  be  divided  into  two. 
(//)  The  parts  peculiar  to  Matthew  have  perfect  internal  probability.  It  has  been  con- 
cluded from  those  differences  that  this  formulary  was  not  yet  in  use  in  the  worship  of 
the  primitive  Church.  If  this  argument  were  valid,  it  would  ajtply  also  to  the  for- 
mula instituting  the  holy  Supper,  whirh  is  unlenal)le.  The  formula  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  was  preserved  at"  first,  like  all  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  history,  by  ir.eans  of  oral 
tradition  ;  it  thus  reminned  exposed  to  secondary  modifications,  and  these  passed 
quite  simply  into  the  first  wiitteu  digests,  from  which  our  synoptical  wj iters  have 
dtawu. 

2d.  Vers.  5-13.  'iJie  Efficanj  of  Prnyer.—KUGV  having  declared  to  His  own  the 
essential  objects  to  be  prayed  for,  Jesus  encourages  them  thus  to  pray  by  assuring 
them  of  the  efficacy  of  the  act.  He  proves  this  (1)  by  an  example,  that  of  the  indis- 
creet friend  (vers.  5-8)  ;  (2)  by  common  experience  (vers.  9  and  10)  ;  (3)  by  the  ta- 
therlj'  goodness  of  God  (vers.  11-13). 

Vers.  5-8.*  This  parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  Holtzmann  says  :  "  Taken  from  A. " 
But  why  in  that  case  has  Matthew  omitted  it,  he  who  reproduces  from  A  both  the 
preceding  and  following  verses  (7  :  7-11)?  The  form  of  expression  is  broken  after 
ver.  7.  It  is  as  if  the  importuned  friend  were  reflecting  what  he  should  do.  His  friend- 
ship hesitates.  But  a  circumstance  decides  him  :  the  perseverance,  carried  even  to 
shamelessness  {avanhia),  of  his  friend  who  does  not  desist  from  crying  and  knocking. 
The  construction  of  ver.  7  does  not  harmonize  with  that  with  which  the  parable  had 
opened  (ver.  5).  There  were  two  ways  of  expressing  the  thought  :  either  to  say, 
"  Tr///c/<  «/?/o«  shall  have  a  friend,  and  shall  say  to  him  .  .  .  and  [if]  the  latter 
shall  answer    .     .     .     [will  not  persist  until]     .     .     .    ;"  ov  io  s^y,  '"  If  one  of  you 

paraphrased  this  petition  :  "  If  the  occasion  of  sinning  presents  itself,  grant  that  the 
desire  may  nui  be  found  in  me  :  if  the  desire  is  there,  grant  that  the  occasion  may 
not  present  itse  f. " 

*  Ver.  5.  A.  D.  K.  M.  P.  R.  IT.  several  Mnn.  Itpi'^'-W"''  :  e^el  instead  of  ei-nv-  Ver. 
6.  14  JIjj.  100  Mnn.  Syr"^^  omit  fiov,  which  is  read  by  the  T.  R.  with  ».  \.  B.  L.  X. 
most  of  tlie  Mnn.  Syr<^"^  It.  Ver.  8.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  oauv  (Akx.) 
and  oaov  (Byz.). 


318  COIIMEXTARY    0:N'   ST.  LUKE. 

hath  a  friend,  and  sayeth  to  him  .  .  .  and  he  answer  him  .  .  .  [nevertheless] 
1  say  unto  you  ..."  Jesus  begins  with  the  first  form,  which  laki;s  each  heme r 
more  directly  aside,  and  continues  (ver.  7)  with  the  second,  which  better  suits  &o 
lengthened  a  statement.  The  reading  elirri  may  be  explained  by  thecATr?;  which  follows 
ver.  7,  as  the  reading  epel  by  the  Futures  which  precede.  The  first  has  more  autliori- 
ties  iu  its  favor.  The  figure  of  the  thfee  loaves  should  not  be  interpreted  allegoiically  ; 
the  meaning  of  it  should  foUuw  from  the  picture  taken  as  a  whole.  One  of  tlie 
loaves  is  for  the  traveller  ;  the  second  for  the  host,  who  must  seat  himself  at  table 
with  him  ;  the  third  will  be  their  reserve.  The  idea  of  full  sufiiciency  (^oacjv  xpK^')  is 
the  real  application  to  be  made  of  this  detail. 

Vers.  9  and  10.*  "  And  1  say  unto  you,  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you  ;  seek, 
and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you.  10.  For  every  one  that 
asketh  receivelh  ;  and  he  that  seeketh  fiudeth  ;  and  to  him  that  kuockcih  it  shall  be 
opened."  Ver.  9  formally  expresses  the  application  of  the  preceding  example  ;  all 
the  figures  appear  to  be  borrowed  from  that  example.  That  is  evident  in  the  case  of 
knocking.  The  word  ask  probablj'-  alludes  to  the  cries  of  the  friend  in  distress,  and 
the  word  seek  to  his  efforts  to  find  the  duor  in  the  night,  or  in  endeavoring  to  open  it. 
The  gradation  of  those  figures  includes  the  idea  of  incrcasiug  energy  in  the  face  of 
multiplying  obstacles.  A  precept  this  which  Jesus  had  learned  by  Ilis  personal  ex- 
perience (3  :  21,  22). 

Ver.  10  confirms  the  exhortation  of  ver.  9  by  daily  experience.  The  fiitine,  it 
liliall  he  opened,  which  contrasts  with  the  two  presents,  receivelh,  findeth,  is  used  be- 
cause in  this  case  it  is  not  the  same  individual  who  performs  the  two  successive  acts, 
(is  in  the  former  two.  The  opening  of  the  door  depends  on  the  will  of  another  per- 
son. How  can  we  help  admiring  here  the  explanation  afforded  by  Luke,  who,  by 
die  connection  which  he  establishes  between  this  precept  and  the  foregoing  example, 
so  happily  accounts  for  the  choice  of  the  figures  used  by  our  Lord,  and  brings  into 
view  their  entire  appropriateness?  In  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  this  saying  is  f(;und 
placed  in  1  lie  midst  of  a  series  of  precepts,  at  the  end  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
detached  from  the  parable  which  explains  its  figures  ;  it  produces  the  effect  of  a 
petal  torn  from  its  stalk,  and  lying  on  the  spot  where  the  wind  has  let  it  fall.  Who 
could  hesitate  between  the  two  narratives  ? 

Vers.  11-13. f  "  If  a  son  shall  ask  bread  of  any  of  you  that  is  a  father,  will  he 
give  him  a  stone  ?  or  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he  for  a  fish  give  him  a  serpent  ?  12.  Or 
/f  he  shall  ask  an  egg,  will  he  offer  him  a  scorpion  ?  13.  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know 
how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly 
Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  Him  !"  Undoubtedly  it  sometimes 
liappens  in  human  relations,  that  the  maxim  of  ver.  10  does  not  hold  good.  But  in  a 
paternal  and  filial  relationship,  such  as  that  which  was  set  before  us  by  the  model 
given  at  the  beginning,   success  is  certain.     It  is  a  Father  to  whom  the  believer 

*  Ver.  9.  T!ie  Mss.  are  divided  here,  as  well  as  at  ver.  10.  between  avoLxOv^erai 
and  avoi.yTj'JeTni  (the  second  probably  taken  from  Matthew) 

t  Ver.  11.  ».  D.  L.  X.  6  Mnn.  Vg.  Or  ,  rtc  instead  of  nva.  11  Mjj.  50  Mnn.  It. 
Vg.  read  ei  befoic  rytwi'.  Or.  Epiph.  omit  o  before  ncog.  i^.  L.  1  Ma.  Ii"''*!.  Vg.  omit 
o  vioc.  All  Ihf;  Mji.  read,  before  icai,  n  instead  of  ;;,  whicli  the  T.  R.  reads,  with 
some  Mnn.  only.  Ver.  12.  ii  B.  L.  some  Mnn.,  ??  Km  instead  of  j]  Km  sav.  Ver.  13. 
i^.  D.  K.  M.  X.  /T,  several  Man.,  o"Tex  instead  of  vwapxavTeS.  C.  U.  several  ^Inn. 
Vss.  add  v/xo)v  after  ■Karrip.  5>.  L.  X.  Byr.  Itp''*''i"«,  omit  o  before  c|  ovoavov.  L.  8 
j\Iun.  Vg. ,  TiVeviia  nyaOov  instead  of  nvev/m  ayiov. 


rilAl'.    \l.  :  il-oC,  ,11'.) 

prays  ;  and  -when  prayinij  to  Iliin  in  conformity  with  tlic  model  proscribed,  he  is 
sure  to  ask  nothing  except  tiiose  thiuirs  which  such  a  Father  cannot  refuse  to  Ilis 
child,  and  iustead  of  which  that  Fatiier  would  not  give  him  other  thincis,  either  hurt- 
fid  or  even  less  precious.  The  end  of  the  piece  thus  brings  us  back  to  the  starting- 
point  :  the  title  Father  given  to  God,  and  the  filial  character  of  him  who  prays  the 
L)rd's  Pra^'er.  At',  then,  relates  to  the  a  fortiori,  iu  the  certainly  which  we  have 
just  expressed.  Tiie  reading  of  some  Alex.,  Ws  ...  6  vloi  or  vloc,  "  What  son 
sliall  ask  of  his  father,"  would  appeal  to  the  feeling  of  son«hip  among  the  hearers  ; 
till!  reading  nva  ...  is  clearly  to  be  preferred  to  it,  "  Wiiat  father  of  whom  his 
son  shall  ask,"  by  which  .Jesus  appeals  to  the  heart  of  fathers  iu  the  nsscmbl}-.  The 
three  articles  of  food  enumerated  by  Jesus  appear  at  fiist  sight  to  be  chosen  at  ran- 
dom. But,  as  M.  Bovet  *  remarks,  loaves,  hard  eggs,  and  fried  fishes  are  precisely 
the  ordinary  elements  of  u  traveller's  fare  iu  the  East.  Matthew  omits  the  tliird  ; 
Luke  has  certainly  not  added  it  at  his  own  hand.  The  correspondence  between 
bread  and  stone,  fish  and  serpent,  egg  and  scorpion,  appears  at  a  glance.  In  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  all  is  picturesque,  full  of  appropriateness,  exquisite  even  to  the 
minutest  details.  'E-i(h6ovai,  to  transfer //w;i  hand  to  hand.  This  word,  which  is 
not  repeated  in  ver.  llj,  includes  this  thought  :  "  What  P'alher  will  have  the  courage 
to  put  into  the  hand     .     .     .     ?" 

The  conclusion,  ver.  13,  is  drawn  by  a  new  argument  d  fortiori ;  and  the  reason- 
ing is  still  further  strengthened  hy  the  words,  ye  being  evil.  The  reading  v-jrapxovrei, 
"  raiding  yourselves  evU,"  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  context  than  uvrei,  being 
(which  is  taktn  from  ^lalthew,  where  the  readings  do  not  vary).  "Y-apx^iv  denotes 
the  actual  state  as  the  starting-point  for  the  supposed  activitj'.  Bengel  justly  ob- 
serves ;  lllustre  tedimonium  de  peccato  originnli.  The  reading  of  the  Alex.,  which 
omits  6  before  t^  ov^avov,  would  admit  of  the  translation,  will  give  from  Jieaven.  But 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  context  which  could  have  led  Luke  to  put  this  construction 
so  prominently.  From  heaoen  thus  depends  on  the  word  FatJier,  and  the  untranslat- 
able Greek  form  can  only  be  explained  by  introducing  the  verbal  notion  of  giving 
between  the  substantive  and  its  government :  "  The  Father  who  giveth  from 
heaven."  Instead  of  the  IloJy  Spirit,  Matthew  says,  good  things;  and  De  Wette  ac- 
cuses Luke  of  having  corrected  him  in  a  spiritualizing  sense.  He  would  thus  have 
done  here  exactl}'  the  opposite  of  that  which  has  been  imputed  to  him  iu  respect  to 
6  :  20  1  Have  we  not  then  a  complete  proof  that  Luke  took  this  whole  piece  from  a 
source  peculiar  to  himself?  As  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  two  expressions,  that  of 
Matthew  is  simple  and  less  didactic  ,  that  of  Luke  harmonizes  better  peihaps  with 
the  elevated  sphere  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  which  is  the  starting-point  of  the  piece. 
The  use  of  the  simple  ^uoei  (instead  of  kniduaei,  ver.  12)  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
idea  does  not  recur  of  giving  from  hand  to  hand. 

We  regard  this  piece  as  one  of  those  in  which  the  originality  and  excellcuce  of 
Luke's  sources  appear  iu  their  full  liglit,  allhough  we  consider  tiie  compaiisouof 
Matthew  indispensable  to  restore  tlie  words  of  our  Lord  iu  their  entirety. 

7.  Jhe  Blastphnnii  of  the  Phnrixeen :  11  :  14-80.— We  have  already  ob.served  (see  on 
G  :  11;  how  remarkably  coincident  iu  time  are  the  accusations  called  forth  in  Galilee 
by  the  healings  on  the  S;U)batli,  and  tiiose  which  are  raised  about  the  same  period  at 
Jerusalem  by  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  (John  5).     There  is  a  similar  corre- 

*  See  the  charming  passage,  "  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,"  p.  J5G2,  Gth  ed. 


320  CO.MMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

spondence  between  the  yet  graver  accusation  of  complicity  with  Beelzebub,  raised 
agaiust  Jesus  on  the  occasion  of  His  healing  demoniacs,  and  the  charge  brought 
against  Him  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles  and  of  the  Dedication  : 
"  Thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil  !"  (John  8  :  48)  ;  "  He  hath  a  devil,  and  is 
mud  !"  (10  :20).  Matthew  (chap.  12)  and  Mark  (chap,  o)  place  this  accusation  and 
the  answer  of  Jesus  much  earlier,  in  the  first  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  ac- 
cusation may  and  must  have  often  been  repeated.  The  comparison  of  John  would 
tell  in  favor  of  Luke's  narrative.  Two  sayings  which  proceeded  from  the  crowd 
give  rise  to  the  following  discourse  :  the  accusation  of  complicity  with  Beelzebub 
(ver.  15),  and  the  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (ver.  10).  It  might  seem  at  hist 
sight  that  these  aie  two  sayings  simply  placed  in  juxtapositiou  ;  but  it  is  n«t  so. 
Tlie  second  is  intended  to  offer  Jesus  the  means  of  dealing  Himself  of  the  terrible 
charge  involved  in  the  first  :  "  "Work  a  miracle  in  the  heavens,  ihat  sphere  which  is 
exclusively  divine,  and  we  shall  then  acknowledge  that  it  is  God  who  acts  through 
tliee,  and  not  Satan."  This  demand  in  appearance  proceeds  from  a  disposition 
favorable  to  Jesus  ;  but  as  those  who  address  Him  reckon  on  his  poweilessness  to 
meet  the  demand,  the  result  of  the  test,  in  their  view,  will  be  a  condemnation  with- 
out appeal.  Those  last  are  therefore  in  reality  the  w-orst  iutentioned,  and  it  is  in  that 
light  that  Luke's  text  represents  them.  Matthew  isolales  the  two  questions,  and 
simply  puts  in  juxtaposition  the  two  discourses  which  reply  to  them  (12  :  22  (t  seq., 
30  et  seq.)  ;  thus  the  significant  connection  which  we  have  just  indicated  disappeais. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Holtzmann  and  other  moderns  can  see  nothing  in 
this  relation  established  by  Luke,  but  a  specimen  of  his  "  [arbitrary]  manner  of  join- 
ing together  pieces  wiiich  were  detached  in  the  Logia  (.V)." 

This  piece  includes  :  \st.  A  statement  of  the  facts  which  gave  rise  to  the  two  fol- 
lowing discourses  (vers.  14-16)  ;  2d.  The  first  discourse  in  reply  to  the  accusation  of 
ver.  15  (vers.  17-26)  ;  M.  An  episode  showing  the  deep  impression  produced  on  the 
people  by  this  discourse  (vers.  27  and  28)  ;  Ath.  The  second  discourse  in  reply  to  the 
challenge  thrown  out  to  Jesus,  ver.  10  (vers.  29-30). 

1st.  Vers.  14-10.*  'Hi-  ekSu'^Iuv,  He  ioas  occupied  in  casting  out.  The  word  Kufptli 
dull,  may  mean  deaf  or  dumb;  according  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  it  here  denotes 
dumbness.  On  the  expression  du?7ib  devil,  see  p.  276.  I>leek  justly  concludes, 
from  this  term,  that  the  dumbness  was  of  a  psj'chical,  not  an  organic  nature.  The 
construction  h/evero  .  .  .  tA&.Tiaev  betrays  an  Aramaic  source.  The  accusation, 
ver.  15,  is  twice  mentioned  by  Matthew — 9  :  32,  on  the  occasion  of  a  deaf  man  pos- 
sessed, but  without  Jesus  replying  to  it  ;  then  12  :  22,  which  is  the  parallel  passage  to 
ours  ;  here  the  possessed  man  is  dumb  and  blind.  Should  not  those  two  miracles  be 
regarded  as  only  one  and  the  same  fact,  the  account  of  which  was  taken  first  (Malt.  9) 
from  the  Logia,  second  (Matt.  12)  from  the  proto-Mark,  as  Holtzmann  appears  to 
think,  therein  following  his  system  to  its  natural  consequences  ?  But  in  that  case  we 
should  have  the  result,  that  the  Logia,  the  collection  of  discourses,  contained  the  fact 
without  the  discourse,  and  that  the  proto-Mark,  the  strictly  historical  writing,  con- 
tained the  discourse  without  the  fact — a  strange  anomaly,  it  must  be  confessed  !  In 
Mark  3  this  accusation  is  connected  with  the  step  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus  who  come 

*  Ver.  14.  YLni  nvro  t]v  is  wanting  in  5i  B.  L.  7  Mnn.  Syr<^"".  A.  C.  L.  X. 
6  Mnn.,  eKiS/^rjOevroi  instead  of  e^eAOoiroc.  D.  It"''?,  present  this  verse  under  a  s.jtne- 
what  different  form.  Ver.  15.  A.  D.  K.  M.  X.  n.  40  Mnn.  read  here  a  long  appen- 
dix taken  from  Mark  3  :  23. 


(11. \r.    \i.  :  14-11).  321 

to  lay  hold  of  Him,  because  they  have  heard  say  that  He  is  beside  Himself,  that  He  is 
mail  (;3  :21,  dri  iitani).  This  expression  is  neaily  synonymous  with  that  of  posucsscd 
(Juhn  10  :  20).  Accordhig  lo  this  accusation,  it  was  tlius  as  one  Himself  possessed 
by  the  piince  of  the  de\ils  that  Jesus  had  the  power  of  expelling  inferior  devils. 
From  this  point  of  view,  the  ir,  (ItnuKjIt,  before  the  Uiiine  Bteizebuh,  litis  a  n\()re  for- 
cible sense  Ihiin  iipptars  at  the  lirsl  gUiuce.  It  signifies  nut  only  by  the  aulbority  t.f, 
but  by  IJeelzel)ub  himself  dwelling  personally  in  Jesus.  This  name  given  to  Satan 
appeals  in  all  the  documents  of  Luke,  and  in  almost  a:l  those  of  ]\Ialihew,  with  the 
terminalipn  bid ;  and  this  is  certainly  thetiue  reading.  It  is  probai)ie.  howevet,  ibat 
the  name  is  derived  from  the  Heb.  Baal-Zebub,  God  of  Flies,  a  divinity  who,  accord- 
ing to  2  Kings  1  ct  seq.,  was  woishipped  at  Ekron,  a  city  of  the  Philistines,  and  who 
may  be  compared  with  the  7.ei<i  'k-ofxvioi  of  the  Greeks.  The  invocation  of  this  god 
■was  doubtless  inltuded  lo  pieserve  the  country  from  the  scourge  of  iiies.  In  con- 
tempt, the  Jews  applied  this  name  to  Satan,  while  modifying  its  last  syllable  so  as  to 
make  it  signify  Gvd  of  Duncj  {Baal-Zibul).  Such  is  the  exi  lanation  given  by  Light- 
foot.  Wetsleiu,  Bletk,  etc.  Those  who  raise  this  accusation  are,  in  Luke,  some  of 
the  numerous  persons  present  ;  in  Matthew  ("J  :  o4,  12  :  24),  (he  Plio.rixcex  ;  in  ilatk 
(3  :  22),  scribcS  irhkh  came  doirn  fr  m  Jerusalem.  This  last  indication  by  ]\Iark  would 
harmonize  with  the  synchronism  which  we  have  established  in  ngaid  to  this  accusa- 
tion between  Luke  and  John. 

The  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (ver.  16)  is  mentioned  twice  in  Matt.,  12  :  38 
and  16  :  1.  It  is  not  impossible  that  it  may  have  been  repeated  again  and  again 
(comp.  John  6  :  30).  It  conespouded  with  the  ruling  tendency  of  the  Israelitish  mind, 
the  seeking  for  miracles,  the  ariuela  a'lreii'  (I  Cor.  1  :  22).  "VVe  have  already  explained 
Its  Ijearing  in  the  present  case.  In  John  it  signifies  more  particulaily,  "  Show  thyself 
superior  to  Moses."  In  those  different  forms  it  was  ever  the  repetition  of  the  third 
temptation  {-eiiidi^ovTei,  tempting  Him).  How,  indeed,  could  Jesus  avoid  being 
tempted  to  accept  this  challenge,  and  so  to  confound  by  an  act  of  signal  power  the 
treacherous  accusation  which  He  found  raised  against  Him  ! 

2d.  The  Fird  Dixcuurse  :  vers.  17-26.— It  is  divided  into  two  parts  :  Jesus  refutts 
this  blasphemous  explanation  of  His  cures  (vers.  17-19)  ;  He  gives  their  true  explana- 
tion (vers.  20-20). 

Vers.  17-19.  "  But  He.  knowing  their  thoughts,  said  unto  them  :  Every  kingdom 
divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  desr.lation  ;  and  one  house  falls  upon  anothei. 
18.  If  Satan  also  be  divided  against  himself,  how  shall  his  kingdom  stand  ?  because 
ye  say  that  1  cast  out  devils  tlnough  Beelzebub.  19.  And  if  I  by  Beelzelmb  cast  out 
devils,  by  whom  do  your  sous  ca.st  them  out?  theiefore  .shall  they  be  your  judges." 
In  vers.  17  and  18  Jesus  appeals  to  the  common-sense  of  His  hearers  ;  it  is  far  from 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  devil  would  fight  against  himself.  It  is  true,  it  might  be 
lej  lined  that  Satan  drove  out  his  underlings,  the  better  to  accredit  Him  as  his  3Ies- 
siah.  Jesus  does  not  seem  to  have  referred  to  this  objection.  In  any  case,  the 
.sequel  would  answer  it  ,  tlie  devil  can  remove  the  diabolical  spirit,  but  not  replace 
it  liy  the  Holy  Spirit.  Aiav<iT//^aTa,  their  thovf/hts,  denotes  the  wicked  source  concealed 
behind  such  words  (vers,  lo  and  10).  The  words,  "And  one  house  falls  upon 
another,"  appear  to  be  in  Luke  the  development  of  the  epjjfiovTai,  is  brought  to  desolu- 
tion  :  the  ruin  of  families,  as  a  con.sequence  of  civil  discord.  In  ]\Iatthew  and  Mark 
they  evidently  include  a  new  example,  parallel  to  the  preceding  one.  This  sense  is 
also  admissible  in  Luke,  if  we  make  the  object  tm  oIkov  depend,  not  on  -i~-ei,  but 


323  CO.MMEXTAllV    ON'    ST.   LUKE. 

on  ihafxepia'ieig  .  .  .:"  Aud  likewise  a  house  divided  against  a  house  falls."  The 
el  61  Kat,  ver.  18,  liere  signifies,  and  entirely  so  if.  .  .  .  In  the  appendix,  because 
ye  say,  there  is  revealed  a  deep  feeling  of  indignation.  This  emphatic  form  recalls 
that  of  Marie  (3  :  30)  :  "  Because  they  said,  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit."  The  two 
analogous  terms  of  expression  had  become  fixed  in  the  tradition  (comp.  5  :  24  and 
parall.  ;  see  also  on  13  :  18)  ;  but  their  form  is  sufficiently  different  to  prove  that  the 
one  evangelist  did  not  copy  from  the  other. 

By  this  first  reply  Jesus  has  simply  enlisted  common-sense  en  His  side.  He  now 
thrusts  deeper  the  keen  edge  of  His  Ijgic,  ver.  19.  If  the  accusation  raised  against 
Him  is  well-founded,  llis  adversaries  must  impute  to  many  of  the  sons  of  Israel  the 
same  compact  with  Satan.  We  know  from  the  N.  T.  and  Josephus,  that  there  were 
at  that  time  numenms  Jewish  exorcists  wiio  made  a  business  of  driving  out  devils 
for  money  (Acts  19:13:  "Certain  of  the  vagabond  Jews,  exorcists  .  .  ." 
Comp.  Josephus,  Antiq.  8  :  2.  5).*  The  Talmud  also  speaks  of  those  exorcists,  who 
took  David,  healing  Saul  by  his  son^s,  as  their  patron,  and  Solomon  as  the  inventor 
of  their  incantations  :  "  They  take  roots,  fumigate  tbe  patient,  administer  to  him  a 
decoction,  and  the  spirit  vanishes"  (Tauch.  f.  70,  1).  Such  are  the  persons  whom 
Je.sus  designated  by  the  expression,  your  sons.  Several  Fathers  have  thought  that 
He  meant  Ilis  own  apostles,  who  also  wrought  like  cures  ;  but  the  argument  would 
have  had  no  value  with  Jews,  for  they  would  not  have  hesitated  to  apply  to  the  cures 
wrouglit  by  the  disciples  the  explanation  with  which  they  had  just  stigmatized 
those  of  the  Master.  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  Neander  give  to  the  woid  sons  the  mean- 
ing wdiich  it  has  in  the  expression  sons  of  the  prophets,  that  of  disciples.  But  is  it 
proved  that  those  exorcists  studied  in  the  Rabbmical  schools  ?  Is  it  not  simpler  to 
explain  tl.e  term  your  sons  in  this  sense  :  ""  You  own  countrymen— your  tiesh  and 
Ijloud— whom  you  do  not  think  of  repudiating,  but  from  whom,  en  tlie  contrary,  you 
take  glory  wlien  they  perform  works  of  power  similar  to  mine  ;  they  do  not  work 
signs  in  the  heavens,  and  yet  you  do  not  suspect  their  cures.  Tliey  shall  confound 
you  therefore  before  the  divine  tribunal,  by  convicting  you  of  having  apphed  to  me 
a  judgment  wliich  you  should  with  much  stronger  reason  have  applied  to  them." 
In  reality,  what  a  contrast  was  there  between  the  free  and  open  strife  wiiich  Jesus 
maintained  with  the  malignant  spirits  whom  He  expelled,  and  the  suspicious  manipu- 
lations in  which  those  exorcists  indulged  !  between  the  entire  physical  and  moial 
restoration  which  His  word  brought  to  the  sick  who  were  healed  by  Him,  and  the 

*  '*  I  have  seen  one  of  my  countrymen,  named  Eleazar,  who  in  the  presence  of 
Vespasian  and  bis  sous,  captains  and  soldiers,  delivered  persons  possessed  with 
devils.  The  manner  of  his  cure  was  this  :  Bringing  close  to  the  nostrils  of  the  pos- 
sessed man  his  uug,  under  the  bezel  of  which  there  was  inclosed  one  of  the  roots  pie- 
sciibed  by  Solomon,  be  made  bun  smell  it,  and  thus  gradually  he  drew  out  the 
demon  through  the  no.stiils.  The  man  then  fell  on  the  ground,  and  the  exorcist  com- 
manded the  demon  to  rUurn  into  him  no  more,  utteiiug  all  tlie  while  the  name  of 
S.jl.imon,  and  reciting  the  incantations  which  he  composed.  Wishing  to  convince 
the  bystanders  of  the  power  which  he  exercised,  and  to  demonstrate  it  to  them, 
E'eazar  placed  a  little  way  off  a  cup  or  basin  full  of  water,  and  commanded  the 
demon  to  overturn  it  as  he  went  out  of  the  man.  anii  thereby  to  fnrnish  proof  to  the 
spectators  that  he  had  lealiy  quitted  him.  Th;tt  having  taken  place,  the  knowl- 
edge and  wisdom  of  Solomon  were  evident  to  all."  Comp.  "  Bell.  Jud.,"  vii.  6.  3, 
where  the  magical  root  mentioned,  a  sort  of  rue  {^ijjnvov),  is  called  Baara,  from  the 
name  of  the  valley  where  it  was  gathered  with  infinite  trouble,  near  the  fortress  of 
Machaerus. 


CHAP.    xr.  :  ^>0-22.  32:J 

half  cures,  generally  followed  by  ri;lai)ses,  wliicli  they  wroiigiit  !  To  ascribe  the 
imperfect  cures  to  God,  and  to  refer  the  perfect  cures  to  the  devil — what  lo^ic  ! 

Vers.  20-^0.  After  having  by  this  new  (o-cjumdituiii  ad  homhictn  refuted  the  sup- 
position of  llis  adversaries,  Jesus  gives  tlie  true  explanation  of  Ilis  cures  by  contrast- 
ing the  picture  of  one  of  those  oxp\ilsions  which  He  works  (vers.  20-22)  with  that  of 
a  cure  performed  by  the  exorcists  (vers.  2;]-2r)). 

Vers.  20-22.  "  But  if  I  with  the  linger  of  God  cast  out  devils,  no  doubt  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  come  upon  you.  21.  "VVhcn  a  strong  man  armed  keeiietli  his  palace, 
his  goods  arc  in  peace.  22.  But  when  a  stronger  than  he  shall  come  upon  him  and 
overcome  him,  he  taketh  from  him  all  his  armor  wherein  he  trusted,  and  dividelh 
his  spoils."  Vcr.  20  draws  the  conclusion  (('f,  noio  ;  upn,  then)  from  the  preceding 
arguments,  and  forms  the  transition  to  the  two  following  scenes.  In  this  declaration 
there  is  betrayed  intense  indignation  :  "  Let  them  take  heed  !  The  kingdom  of  God, 
for  which  they  are  waiting,  is  already  there  without  their  suspecting  it  ;  and  it  is  upon 
it  that  their  blasphemies  fall.  They  imagine  tluit  it  will  come  with  noise  and  tumult ; 
and  it  has  come  more  quickl}'  than  they  thought,  and  far  otherwise  it  has  reached 
thfux  {i(p'jaaev).  The  construction  to' iiuds,  «j;oim  j/ow,  bas  a  threatening  sense.  Since 
they  set  themselves  in  array  against  it,  it  is  an  enemy  which  has  surprised  them,  and 
which  will  crush  them.  The  terni  finger  of  God  is  admirably  in  keeping  with  the 
context :  the  arm  is  the  natural  seat  and  emblem  of  strength  ;  and  the  finger,  the 
smallest  part  of  the  arm,  is  the  symbol  of  the  ease  with  which  this  power  acts.  Jesus 
means,  '"  As  for  me,  1  have  ovAy  to  lift  my  finger  to  make  the  devils  leave  their 
prey."  These  victories,  so  easily  won,  prove  that  henceforth  Satan  has  found  his 
conqueror,  and  that  now  God  begins  really  to  reign.  This  word,  full  of  majesty, 
unveils  to  His  adversaries  the  grandeur  of  the  work  which  is  going  forward,  and 
what  tragic  results  are  involved  in  the  hostile  attitude  which  they  are  taking  toward 
it.  Instead  of  by  the  finger  of  Ood,  Matthew  says  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  Weiz- 
siicker,  always  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  document,  supposes  that 
Luke  has  designedly  replaced  it  by  another,  because  it  seemed  to  put  Jesus  in 
dependence  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  maj'  a  man  not  prove  with  such  criticism  ? 
Is  it  not  simpler,  with  Bleek,  to  regard  the  figurative  term  of  Luke  as  the  original 
form  in  the  saying  of  Jesus,  which  has  been  replaced  by  the  abstract  but  radically 
equivalent  expression  of  Matthew  ?  Mark  omits  the  two  verses  19  and  20.  Why 
■would  he  have  done  so,  if  he  had  had  before  his  eyes  the  same  document  as  the 
others  ? 

Vers.  21  and  22  serve  to  illustrate  the  thought  of  ver.  20  :  the  citadel  of  Satan  is 
plundered  ;  the  fact  proves  that  Satan  is  vanquished,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
come.  A  strona:  and  well-armed  warrior  watches  at  the  gate  of  his  fortress.  So 
"long  as  he  is  in  this  position  (orav),  all  is  tranquil  (ev  e'lpipjj)  in  his  fastness  ;  his  cap- 
tives remain  chained,  and  his  booty  {aKvla)  is  secure.  The  warrior  is  Satan  (the  art. 
6  alludes  to  a  single  and  definite  personality)  ;  his  castle  is  the  world,  which  up  till 
now  has  been  his  confirmed  property.  His  armor  consists  of  those  powerful  means 
of  influence  which  he  wields.  His  booty  is,  first  of  all,  according  to  the  context, 
those  possessed  ones,  the  palpable  monuments  of  his  sway  over  humanity  ;  and  in  a 
wider  sense,  that  humanity  itself,  which  with  miith  or  groans  bears  tlie  chains  of 
sin.  But  a  wai'rior  superior  in  strength  has  appeared  on  the  world's  stage  ;  and 
from  that  moment  all  is  changed.  'E-di\from  the  time  that,  denotes  the  abrupt  and 
decisive  character  of  this  succession  to  power,  in  opposition  to  orar,  as  long  as,  which 


324  COMMEXTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

suited  the  period  of  security.  Tliis  stronger  maa  is  Jesus  (the  art.  6  also  alludes  to 
His  defiuite  personality).  He  alone  can  really  plunder  the  citadel  of  the  prince  of 
this  world.  Why?  Because  He  alone  began  by  conquering  him  in  single  combat. 
This  victory  in  a  personal  engagement  was  the  preliminary  condition  of  His  taking 
possession  of  the  earth.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that,  as  Keim  and  Weizsitcker  ac- 
knowledge, .Jesus  is  here  thinking  of  the  scene  of  His  temptation.  That  spiritual  tri- 
umph is  the  foundation  laid  for  the  ebtablislmient  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the 
earth,  and  for  the  destruction  of  that  of  Satan.  As  soon  as  a  man  can  tell  llie  prince 
of  this  world  to  his  face,  "  Thou  hast  nothing  in  me"  (.John  14:80),  the  stronger 
man,  the  vanquisher  of  the  strong  man,  is  come  ;  and  the  plundering  of  his  house  be- 
gins. This  plundering  consists,  tirst  of  all,  of  the  heaUngsof  the  jiossessed  wrought  by 
Jesus.  Thus  is  explained  the  ease  with  which  He  performs  those  acts  by  which  He 
rescues  those  unht-ppy  ones  from  malignant  powers,  and  restores  them  to  God,  to 
themselves,  and  to  liumau  society.  All  the  figures  of  this  scene  are  evidently  bor- 
rowed from  Isa.  49  :  24,  35,  where  Jehovah  Himself  fills  the  part  of  liberator,  which 
Jesus  here  ascribes  to  Himself. 

Vers.  28-26.*  "  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me  ;  and  he  that  gathereth  not 
with  me  scattereth.  24.  When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he  walketh 
through  dry  places,  seeking  rest  ;  and  finding  none,  he  saith,  I  will  return  imto  my 
house  whence  I  came  out.  25.  And  wlien  he  comelh,  he  findeth  it  swept  and  gar- 
nished. 26.  Then  goeth  he,  and  taketh  to  him  seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than 
himself  ;  and  they  enter  in,  and  dwell  there  :  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse 
than  the  first."  T^he  rel-dtiou  between  ver.  23  and  the  verses  which  precede  and  fol- 
low has  been  thought  so  obscure  by  De  Wette  and  Bleek  that  they  give  up  the  at- 
tempt to  explain  it.  In  itself  the  figure  is  clear.  It  is  that  of  a  troop  wliich  has 
been  dispersed  bj'  a  victorious  enem\',  and  which  its  captain  seeks  to  rail}',  after  hav- 
ing put  the  enemy  to  fiight  ;  but  false  allies  hinder  ratlier  tlian  promote  the  rallying. 
Is  it  so  difficult  to  understand  the  connection  of  this  figure  with  the  context '?  The 
dispersed  army  denotes  humanity,  which  Satan  has  conquered  ;  the  chief  who  rallies 
it  is  Jesus  ;  the  seeming  allies,  who  have  the  appearance  of  fighting  for  the  same 
cause  as  He  does,  but  who  in  reality  scatter  abroad  with  Satan,  are  the  exorcists. 
Not  having  conquered  for  themselves  the  chief  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  it  is  only 
in  appearance  that  they  can  drive  out  his  underlings  ;  in  realit3^  they  serve  no  end  by 
those  alleged  exploits,  except  to  strengtlien  the  previous  state  of  things,  and  to  keep 
up  the  reign  of  the  ancient  master  of  the  world.  Such  is  the  object  which  the  fol- 
lowing illustration  goes  to  prove.  By  the  thrice-repeated  e/iov,  me,  of  ver.  23,  there 
is  brought  into  relief  the  decisive  importance  of  the  part  which  .Jesus  plays  in  llie 
hi.story  of  humanity  ;  He  is  the  impersonation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  His  appear- 
ance is  the  advent  of  a  new  power.  The  words  aKopTviZeLv,  to  disperse,  and  avvuyeLv, 
to  gather  together,  are  found  united  in  the  same  sense  as  here,  .John  10  :  13-16. 

The  two  following  verses  serve  to  illustrate  the  saying  of  ver.  23,  as  vers.  21  and 
22  illustrated  the  declaration  of  ver.  20.  They  are  a  sort  of  apologue  poetically  de- 
scribing a  cure  wrought  by  the  means  which  the  exorcists  employ,  and  the  end  of 
which  is  to  show,  that  to  combat  Satan  apart  from  Christ,  his  sole  conqueror,  is  to 
Work  for  him  and  against  God  ;  comp.  the  opposite  case,  9  :  49,  50.     The  exorcist 

*  Ver.  24.  !*^  B.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  It»"i.  read  tote  after  evpianov.  The  mss. 
are  divided  between  evpioKov  and  evoinKuv,  and  at  ver.  25  between  e'/'jov  and  F.?f)<jv, 
Ver.  25.  »^  B.  C.  L.  R.  T.  12  Mnn.  It'^"'!.  read  axo/.nCovra  jifter  svpiaKii  (taken  from 
Matthew).     Ver.  26.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ELaeWovra  and  eAfJovTa. 


CHAP.  XL  :  23-28.  325 

luis  iilied  his  art  ;  the  itnpurc  spirit  has  let  go  his  prey,  quilted  his  dwelling,  which 
fur  llie  time  ims  become  iutolemble  to  him.  But  two  things  aie  wauliug  to  the  cuic 
t.)  make  it  real  aud  durable.  First  of  all,  the  enemy  has  not  been  conquered, 
b  lund  ;  he  has  oul}'  been  expelled,  aud  he  is  free  to  take  his  course  of  the  wuld, 
pLTJiaps  to  returu.  Jesus,  ou  the  other  hand,  sent  the  malignant  spirits  to  their 
piison,  the  abyss  whence  the}'  could  no  longer  come  foilh  till  the  judgment  (8  :  151, 
4  :  o4)  Then  the  house  vacated  is  not  occujned  by  a  new  tenant,  who  can  bar  the 
entrance  of  it  against  the  old  one.  Jesus,  on  the  contraiy,  does  not  content  Himself 
with  expelling  the  demon  ;  He  brings  back  the  soul  to  its  God  ;  He  replaces  the  im- 
cleuu  spirit  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  a  relapse  after  a  cure  of  this  sort  is  impossible, 
so  is  it  probable  and  imminent  in  the  former  case.  Every  line  of  the  picture  ia 
which  Jesus  represents  this  state  of  things  is  charged  with  irony.  The  spirit  driven 
out  walks  through  dry  places.  This  strange  expression  was  probably  borrowed  from 
the  formulas  of  exorcism.  The  spirit  was  relegated  to  the  desert,  the  presumed 
abode  of  evd  spirits  (Tob.  8:3;  Baruch  4  :  35).  The  reference  was  the  same  ia 
the  symbolical  sending  of  the  goat  into  the  Avilderness  for  Azazel,  the  prince  of  the 
devils. 

But  the  malignant  spirit,  after  roaming  for  a  time,  begins  to  regret  the  loss  of  his 
old  abode  ;  would  it  not  be  well,  he  asks  himself,  to  returu  to  it  ?  He  is  so  sure  that 
lie  needs  only  to  w^ill  it,  that  he  exclaims  with  sarcastic  gayety  :  I  will  return  unto  my 
house.  At  bottom  he  knows  very  well  that  he  has  not  ceased  to  be  the  proprietor  of 
it ;  a  proprietor  is  ouiy  dispossessed  in  so  far  as  he  is  replaced.  First  he  determines 
to  reconnoitre.  Having  come,  he  finds  that  the  house  is  disposable  {axo7Mi^ovTa, 
Matt.).  He  finds  what  is  better  still  :  the  exorcist  has  worked  with  so  much  success, 
that  the  house  has  recovered  a  most  agreeable  air  of  propriety,  order,  and  comfort 
since  his  departure.  Far,  therefore,  from  being  closed  against  the  malignant  spirit, 
it  is  only  better  prepared  to  leceive  him.  Jesus  means  thereby  to  describe  the  resto- 
ration of  the  physical  and  mental  powers  conferred  by  the  half  cures  which  He  is 
stigmatizing.  Anew  there  is  a  famous  work  of  destruction  to  be  accomplished — 
Satan  cares  for  no  other — but  this  time  it  is  not  to  be  done  by  halves.  And  therefore 
there  is  need  for  reinforcement.  Besides,  it  is  a  festival  ;  there  is  need  of  friends. 
The  evil  spirit  goes  off  to  seek  a  number  of  companions  sufficient  to  finish  tlie  work 
which  had  been  interrupted.  These  do  not  require  a  second  bidding,  aud  the  merry 
crew  throw  themselves  into  their  dwelling.  This  time,  we  may  be  suie,  nothing  will 
be  wantinsr  to  the  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  destruction  of  the  possessed. 
Such  was  the  state  in  which  Jesus  had  found  the  Gergesene  demoniac  (8  :  29),  and 
probably  also  Mary  Magdalene  (8  : 2).  This  explains  in  those  two  cases  the  w^ords 
Legion  (8  :  30)  and  neven  devils  (8  :  2),  which  are  both  symbolical  expressions  for  a  des- 
perate slate  resulting  from  one  or  more  relapses.  Nothing  is  clearer  than  this  con- 
text, or  more  striking  than  this  scene,  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  distinguish 
fully  between  what  belongs  to  the  idea  and  what  to  the  figure.  Thus  has  Jesus  suc- 
ceeded in  retorting  upon  the  exorcists,  so  highly  extolled  by  His  adversaries,  the 
reproach  of  being  auxiliaries  of  Satan,  which  they  had  dared  to  cast  on  Him.  Need 
we  wonder  at  the  enthusiasm  which  this  discourse  excited  in  the  multitude,  and  at 
the  exclamation  of  the  woman,  in  which  this  feeling  of  admiration  finds  utterance? 

M.  Vers.  27,  28.*  The  Incident.—''  Aud  it  came  to  pass,  as  He  spake  these  things, 

*  Ver.  28.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  fitvowye  (T.  R.)  and  uevovv  (Alex.). 
8  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  It.  omit  "VTof  after  <pv/.aaauvrei. 


326  COMMENTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE, 

a  certain  woman  of  lliu  company  lifted  up  her  voice,  and  said  unto  Him,  Blessed  is 
the  womb  that  bare  Thee,  and  the  paps  which  Thou  hast  sucked.  28.  But  He  said, 
Yea,  rather,  blessed  are  tliey  that  hear  the  word  of  God,  and  keep  it."  Perhaps,  like 
]\Iar3'  Magdalene,  this  woman  had  herself  experienced  the  two  kinds  of  healing-  which 
Jesus  had  been  contrasting.  In  any  case,  living  in  a  tociet}^  where  scenes  of  tlie  kind 
were  passing  frequently,  she  had  not  felt  the  same  difficulty  in  apprehending  the  fig- 
ures as  "we,  to  whom  they  arc  so  strange.  Jesus  in  His  answer  neither  denies  nor 
affirms  the  blessedness  of  her  wlio  gave  Him  birth.  All  depends  on  this,  if  she  shall 
take  rank  in  the  class  of  those  whom  alone  He  declares  to  be  blessed.  The  true 
leading  appears  to  be  [isvovvye,  fievuvv.  "  There  is  undoubtedly  a  blessedness  ;"  ye 
(the  restricting  particle  as  always)  :  "  at  least  for  those  who    .     .     ." 

Does  not  this  short  account  bear  in  itself  the  seal  of  its  historical  reality  ?  It  is 
altogether  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  suffices  to  demonstrate  the  originality  of  the  source 
from  wliich  this  whole  piece  was  derived.  For  tliis  incident  coulil  not  possibly  stand 
us  a  narrative  by  itself  ;  it  must  have  formed  part  of  liie  account  of  the  entire  scene. 

The  allegorical  tableau,  ver.  24  et  seg.,  is  set  by  Matthew  iu  an  altogether  different 
place,  and  so  as  to  give  it  a  quite  different  application  (12  ;  43  et  seq.).  The  words 
witli  wliicli  it  closes,  "  Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this  wicked  generation,"  prove 
that  it  is  applied  in  that  Gospel  to  tlie  Jewisli  people  taken  collectively.  The  old 
form  of  possession  was  the  spirit  of  idolatry  ;  tliat  of  the  present,  geveu  times  worse, 
is  tl)e  Kal)hinical  pride,  the  pliarisaic  formalism  and  hypocrisy,  which  have  dominion 
over  the  nation  in  the  midst  of  its  monotheistic  zeal.  The  stroke  which  will  fall 
upjn  it  will  be  seven  times  more  terrible  than  that  with  which  it  was  visited  when  it 
was  led  into  captivity  in  Jeremiah's  day.  This  application  is  certainly  grand  and 
felicitous.  But  it  forces  us  entirely  to  separate  this  scene,  vers.  24-26,  as  the  first 
Gospel  docs,  from  the  preceding,  vers.  21,  22,  which  in  JVlatthevv  as  well  as  in  Luke 
can  only  refer  to  the  healing  of  cases  of  possession  ;  and  yet  those  two  scenes  are  in- 
dis[)utably  the  pendants  of  one  another.  Gess  understands  the  application  of  this 
word  in  Matthew  to  the  Jewish  people  in  a  wholly  different  sense.  The  first  cure, 
according  to  him,  was  the  enthusiastic  iiupulse  of  the  people  in  favor  of  Jesus  in  the 
beginnrng  of  His  Galilean  ministry;  the  relapse  referred  to  the  coldness  which  had 
followed,  and  which  had  obliged  Jesus  to  teach  in  parables,  J5ut  nowhere  does 
Jesus  make  so  marked  an  allusion  to  that  crisis,  to  whicli  probably  the  conscience  of 
the  people  was  n.)t  awakened.  Would  it  not  be  belter  in  this  case  to  apply  the  first 
cure  to  the  powerful  effect  produced  by  John  the  Baptist  ?  "  Ye  were  willing  for  a 
seas')n,"  says  Jesus  Himself,  "  to  rejoice  in  his  light  "  (John  5  :  35)  Anyhow,  what 
leads  Matthew  to  convert  tiie  second  si^ene  into  a  national  apologire,  instead  of  leav- 
ing it  willi  its  deruonologieal  and  individual  application,  is  his  insertion,  immediately 
bel'ore,  of  the  saying  wliich  relates  to  blasi)hemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit— a  saying 
which  in  Mark  also  follows  the  scene  of  the  comliat  between  the  strong  man  and  the 
stronger  man.  When,  after  so  grave  an  utterance,  Matthew  returns  to  the  scene 
(omitted  bj''  Mark)  of  the  spirit  recovering  possession  of  his  abandoned  dwelling,  he 
must  necessarily  give  it  a  different  bearing  from  that  which  it  has  in  Luke.  The 
superiority  of  Luke's  account  cannot  appear  doubtful  to  the  reader  who  has  caught 
the  admirable  connection  of  this  discourse,  and  the  striking  meaning  of  all  the  fig- 
ures which  Jesus  uses  to  compose  those  two  scenes.  As  to  the  true  position  of  the 
saying  about  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  question  will  be  discussed 
chap.  12. 

Aih.  Yers.  29-36.  The  Second  Discourse. — This  is  the  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  de- 
mand Avbich  was  addres,sed  to  Him  to  work  a  miracle  proceeding  from  heaven  (ver. 
16).  Strauss  does  not  think  that  Je.sus  could  have  reverted  to  so  secondary  a  ques- 
tion after  the  extremely  grave  charge  with  which  He  had  been  assailed.  We  have 
already  pointed  out  the  relation  which  exists  between  those  two  subjects.  The  mir- 
acle proceeding  from  heaven  was  claimed  from  Jesus  as  the  onl}^  means  He  had  of 


CHAP.  XI.  :  29-32.  327 

clearing  Himself  from  the  suspicion  of  complicity  with  Satan.  In  the  first  part  of 
His  reply,  Jesus  speaks  of  the  only  sign  of  tlie  kind  which  shall  be  granted  to  the 
nation  (vers.  2l)-t32)  ;  in  the  second,  of  the  entire  sulHcieucy  of  this  sign  iu  the  case  of 
cverj'  one  who  has  the  eye  of  his  soul  open  to  behold  it  (vers.  33-oG). 

Vers.  29-82.*  The  t^ignfrom  Ilmteu. — "  And  when  the  people  thronged  together. 
He  began  to  &>xy.  This  is  an  evil  generation  :  they  seek  a  sign  ;  and  there  shall  no  sign 
be  given  it,  but  the  sign  of  Jonas.  J30.  For  as  Jonas  was  a  sign  unto  the  Ninevites, 
so  shall  also  the  Sou  of  man  be  to  this  generation.  31.  The  queen  of  the  south  shall 
rise  up  in  the  jtidgmeut  with  the  men  of  this  generation,  and  condemn  them  :  for 
she  came  from  the  utmost  parts  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  and, 
behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here.  33.  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up  iu  the 
judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it  :  for  they  repented  at  the 
preaching  of  Jonas;  and,  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonas  is  here. "  Diuiug  the  pre- 
vious scene,  a  crowd,  growing  more  and  more  numerous,  had  gathered  ;  and  it  is 
before  it  than  Jesus  gives  the  following  testimony  against  the  national  unbelief.  In 
the  ■TTovr/pd,  icichrd,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  diabolical  spirit  which  had  dictated  the 
call  for  a  sign  {■^etpii^ovrei,  ver.  IG).  The  point  of  comparison  between  Jonas  and 
Jesus,  according  to  Luke,  appears  at  first  sight  to  be  only  the  fact  of  their  preaching, 
while  in  Matt.  12  :  39,  40  it  is  evidently  the  miraculous  deliverance  of  the  one  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  other.  M.  Colani  concludes  from  this  difference  that  Matthew 
has  materialized  the  comparison  which  Jesus  gave  forth  iu  a  purely  moral  sense 
(Luk().f  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Jesus  says  in  Luke,  as  well  as  in  Matthew  : 
"  The  Sou  of  man  *7irt^^  ic  (frrrat)  a  sign,"  by  which  He  cannot  denote  His  present 
preaching  and  appearance,  the  Fut.  necessarily  referring  to  an  event  j^et  to  come — 
an  event  which  can  be  no  other  than  the  entirely  exceptional  miracle  of  His  resurrec- 
tion. They  ask  of  Jesus  a  sign  e^  ovpavov,  proceedinrj  from  heaven,  ver.  10.  His  les- 
urrection,  iu  which  no  human  agency  interveues,  and  iu  which  divine  power  appears 
alone,  fully  satisfies,  and  only  satisfies,  this  demand.  This  is  the  feature  which 
Peter  as.serts  in  Acts  3  :  24,  32,  3  :  lo,  etc.  :  "  God  hath  raised  up  Jesus."  In  John 
2  :  19,  Jesus  replies  to  a  similar  demand  by  announcing  the  same  event.  The  thought 
in  Luke  and  Matthew  is  therefore  exactly  the  same  :  "It  was  as  one  who  had  nu- 
raculou.sly  escaped  from  death  that  Jonas  presented  himself  before  the  Ninevites,  sum- 
moning them  to  anticipate  the  danger  which  threatened  them  ;  it  is  as  the  risen  One 
that  I  (by  mj' messengers)  shall  proclaim  salvation  to  the  men  of  this  generation." 
Which  of  the  two  texts  is  it  which  reproduces  the  answer  of  our  Lord  most  exactly  ? 
But  our  passage  may  be  parallel  with  JVIatt.  10  :  4,  where  the  form  is  that  of  Luke. 
As  to  the  words  of  Matt.  13  :  39,  40,  they  must  bo  autheutic.  No  one  would  liavo 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  the  expression  three  datjn  and  three  niyhiK,  when  Jesus 
had  actually  remained  iu  the  tomb  only  cue  day  and  two  nights. 

But  how  shall  this  sign,  and  this  preaching  which  will  accompany  it,  be  received  ? 
It  is  to  this  new  thought  that  vers.  31  and  33  refer.  Of  the  two  examples  which 
Jesus  quotes,  Matthew  puts  that  of  the  Ninevites  first,  that  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba 
second.  Luke  reverses  the  order.  Here  again  it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  superiority 
of  Luke's  text.     1.  Matthew's  order  has  been  determined  by  the  natural  tendency  to 

*  Ver.  29.  .5  Mjj.  repeat  yevea  after  avri],  read  C'ye'  instead  of  ETnCTjTei,  and  omit  the 
words  -ov  7TiJO(pr,Tov  (taken  from  Matthew).  Ver.  33.  12  Mjj.  80  Muu.  Syr"=''.  It.  read 
Jiiveveirat  instead  of  Ntvevi. 

f  "  Jesus  Christ  ct  les  croyauces  Messianiqucs, "  etc.,  p.  111. 


328  COMMEKTART   OJT   ST.   LL'KE. 

hring  the  example  of  thoNinevites  into  immediate  proximity  with  what  Jesus  has  been 
saying  of  Jouas.  2.  Luke's  order  presents  an  admirable  gradation  :  while  the  wis- 
dom of  Solomon  sufficed  to  attract  the  Queen  of  Sheba  from  such  a  distance,  Israel 
demands  that  to  the  intinitely  higher  wisdom  of  Jesus  there  should  be  added  a  sign 
from  heaven.  This  is  serious  enough.  But  matters  will  be  still  worse  :  while  the 
heathen  of  Nineveh  were  converted  by  the  voice  of  Jonas  escaped  from  deatii,  Israel 
at  the  sight  of  Jesus  raised  from  the  dead,  shall  not  be  converted.  Comp.  as  to  the 
Queen  of  the  South,  1  Kings  10  :  1  et  seq.  Seba  seems  to  have  been  a  part  of  Arabia- 
Felix,  the  modern  Yemen.  'EyepOTjasTai,  shall  rise  rtp  from  her  tomb  on  the  day  of 
the  great  awakening,  at  the  same  time  as  the  Jews  {ue-d,  with,  not  against),  so  that  the 
blindness  of  the  latter  shall  appear  m  full  light,  contras?ted  with  the  earnestness  aud 
docility  of  the  heathen  queen.  The  word  avSpuv,  "the  men  of  this  generation," 
certainly  indicates  a  contrast  with  her  female  sex.  Indeed,  this  term  uv6pEi,  men, 
does  not  reappear  in  the  following  example,  where  this  generation  is  not  compared 
with  a  woman.  Perhaps  the  choice  of  the  first  instance  was  suggested  to  Jesus  by 
the  incident  which  had  just  taken  place,  vers.  37,  38.  The  word  avaarijaovTai,  ver. 
?>li,  shall  rise  tip,  denotes  a  more  advanced  degree  of  life  than  eyepOriaovTai  {shall 
awake).  These  dead  are  not  rising  from  their  tombs,  like  the  Queen  of  Sheba  ;  they 
are  already  in  their  place  before  the  tribunal  as  accusing  witnesses.  How  dramatic 
is  everything  in  the  speech  of  Jesus  !  and  what  variety  is  there  in  the  smallest  details 
of  His  descriptions  ! 

Vers.  33-30.*  The  Spiritual  Eye. — "  No  man,  when  he  hath  lighted  a  candle,  putteth 
it  in  a  secret  place,  neither  under  the  bushel,  but  on  the  candlestick,  that  they  which 
come  in  may  see  the  light.  34.  The  light  of  the  hoiXy  is  the  ej^e  :  therefore  when 
thine  eye  is  single,  thy  whole  body  also  is  full  of  light  ;  but  when  thine  eye  is  evil, 
thy  whole  body  is  full  of  darkness.  35.  Take  heed,  therefore,  that  the  light  which  is 
in  thee  be  not  darkness.  36.  If  thy  whole  body,  therefore,  be  full  of  light,  having 
no  part  dark,  the  whole  shall  be  full  of  light,  as  when  the  bright  shining  of  a  candle 
doth  give  thee  light."  Christ — such  is  the  sign  from  heaven  whose  light  God  will 
diffuse  over  the  world.  He  is  the  lamp  which  gives  light  to  the  house.  God  has 
not  lighted  it  to  allow  it  to  be  banished  to  an  obscure  corner  ;  He  will  put  it  on  a 
candlestick,  that  it  may  shine  before  the  eyes  of  all ;  and  this  He  will  do  by  means 
of  the  resurrection.  Kpvnrrjv,  a  place  out  of  view,  under  a  bed,  e.g.  (8  :  16).  T6i> 
fiddiov,  not  a  bushel,  but  ilie  bushel  ;  there  is  but  one  in  the  house,  which  serves  in 
turn  as  a  measure,  a  dish,  or  a  lantern.f  But  it  is  with  this  sii^n  in  relation  to  our 
soul,  as  with  a  lamp  relatively  to  our  body,  ver.  34.  To  the  light  which  shines  with- 
out there  must  be  a  corresponding  organ  in  the  individual  fitted  to  receive  it,  and 
which  is  thus,  as  it  were,  the  lamp  within.  On  the  state  of  this  organ  depends  the 
more  or  less  of  light  which  we  receive  from  the  external  luminary,  and  which  we 
actually  enjoy.  In  the  body  this  organ,  which  by  means  of  the  external  light  forms 
the  light  of  the  whole  body,  the  hand,  the  foot,  etc.,  is  the  eye  ;  everything,  theie- 

*  Ver.  33.  ».  B.  C.  D.  U.  r,  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It""'?,  omit  (^e  after  ovSeic  Inslend 
of  KpvTTTov,  which  the  T.  R.  reads,  with  some  Mnn.,  all  the  other  documents  read 
KpvTCTj]v.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  to  (peyyoi  (T.  R.)  and  to  ©u?  (Alex.),  which 
appears  to  be  taken  from  8  :  16.  Ver.  34.  6  Alex,  add  oov  after  o(p^ialuoi  (the  first). 
i*.  B.  D.  L.  A.  It.  Vg.  omit  ow  after  oTav.  K.  L.  M.  X.  11.  some  Mnn.  It«''9.,  earat 
instead  of  taTiv.  K.  M.  U.  X.  n.  50  Mnn.  Itpi^Wue^  afj^^  soTai.  after  aiwTeivov.  Ven 
:]0.  D.  Svr"'".  ItP's^'iue,  omit  this  verse. 

t  M.'F.  Bovet,  "  Voyage  cu  Terre-Sainte,"  p.  313. 


CTIAP.   XI.  :  33-36.  320 

fore,  depends  on  llie  stale  of  this  organ.  For  the  soul  it  is — Jesus  docs  not  say  wJiat, 
He  leaves  us  to  guess — the  heart,  Kapdia  ;  coinp.  Malt.  G  :  21  aud  23.  The  underslaud- 
ing,  the  will,  the  wliole  spiritual  being,  is  illuniiuatcd  by  the  diviue  light  which  the 
heart  admits.  With  every  motion  iu  the  way  of  righteousness  tiiere  is  a  discharge  of 
liglit  over  the  wlioIe  soul.  'A-AorS,  single,  aud  hence  iu  this  place — wliich  is  iu  its 
oi  igiual,  normaJ  state  ;  Tvo.jipoi,  corrupt-jd,  aud  heuce  diseased,  iu  ihe  meauiug  of  the 
plirase  noirnnji  fv"''.  to  be  ill.  If  tiie  Jews  were  rigiit  in  heart,  they  would  see  the 
diviue  sign  put  l)efore  their  ej'es  as  easily  as  the  Quetn  of  the  South  aud  the  Niuc- 
vitcs  perceived  the  less  brilliant  sign  placed  before  them  ;  l)ut  their  heart  is  perverse  : 
tliat  oigau  is  diseased  ;  and  hence  the  sign  shines,  and  will  shine,  in  vain  before  their 
view.     The  liglit  without  will  not  become  light  in  them. 

Ver.  33.  It  is  supremely  important,  therefore,  for  every  one  to  Tvatch  with  the 
greatest  care  over  the  state  of  this  precious  organ.  If  the  eye  is  not  enlightened, 
what  member  of  the  body  will  be  so  ?  The  foot  and  hand  will  act  in  the  daikness  of 
night.  So  with  the  faculties  of  the  soul  when  the  heart  is  perverted  from  good. 
Ver.  3G.  But  what  a  contrast  to  this  condition  is  formed  by  that  of  a  being  who  opens 
his  heart  fully  to  the  truth,  his  spiritual  eye  to  the  brightness  of  the  lamp  which  has 
been  lighted  by  God  Himself  1  To  avoid  the  tautology  which  the  two  members  of 
the  verse  seem  to  present,  we  need  only  put  the  emphasis  diilercutly  in  the  two  prop- 
ositions ;  in  the  first  on  d?.ov,  whole  ;  and  iu  the  second  on  (Jxjteivuv,  full  of  UglU, 
connecting  this  word  immediately  with  the  following  as  its  commentary  :  full  of  light 
as  wlLcn  .  .  .  The  very  position  of  the  words  forbids  any  other  giammatical  ex- 
planation ;  and  it  leads  us  to  this  meaning  :  "  When,  through  the  fact  of  the  clear- 
ness ot  thme  eye,  thy  whole  body  shall  be  penetrated  with  light,  Avitbout  there  being 
in  thee  the  least  trace  of  darkness,  then  the  phenomenon  which  will  be  wrought  in 
thee  will  resemble  what  takes  place  on  thy  body  when  it  is  placed  iu  the  rays  of  a 
luminous  focus."  Jesus  means,  that  from  the  inward  part  of  a  perfectly  sanctified 
man  there  rays  forth  a  splendor  which  glorifies  the  external  man,  as  when  he  is  shone 
upon  from  without.  It  is  glory  as  the  result  of  holiness.  The  phenomeuon  desciibed 
here  by  Jesus  is  no  other  than  that  which  was  realjzed  in  Himself  on  the  occasion  of 
His  transfiguration,  and  which  He  now  applies  to  all  Ijelievers.  Passages  such  as  2 
Cor.  3  ;  18  and  Rom.  8  :  29  will  always  be  the  best  commentary  on  this  sublime  dec- 
laration, which  Luke  alone  has  preserved  to  us,  aud  which  forms  so  perfect  a  conclu- 
sion to  this  discourse. 

Bleek  having  miosed  the  meaning  of  this  saying,  and  of  the  piece  generally, 
accuses  Luke  of  having  placed  it  heie  without  ground,  and  prefers  the  setting  which 
it  has  iu  ^lattliew,  iu  llie  middle  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  inun(  diatel}'  after  the 
maxim  :  "  Where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also."  Undoubtedly  this 
context  of  ^latthew  proves,  as  Wi'  have  recognized,  that  the  eye  of  the  soul,  accord- 
ing to  the  view  of  Jesus,  is  the  heart.  But  what  disturbs  the  i)urily  of  that  organ  is 
ni>t  merely  avarice,  as  would  appear  from  the  context  of  ^latt.  0.  It  is  sin  in  general, 
perversity  of  hea'.i  hostile  to  the  light  ;  i;nd  this  more  geneial  application  is  precisely 
that  which  we  find  in  Luke.  This  passage  has  been  jjlaced  iu  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  like  .so  many  othens,  rather  bi'cause  of  the  associaliou  of  ideas  than  from  bis- 
tnrical  reminiscence.  The  context  of  Luke,  from  11  :  1-1  to  ver.  ;!(i.  is  without  fault. 
On  the  one  side  the  accMisatinn  and  dcniaiKl  made  by  tlie  enemies  cf  Jesus,  vers.  15, 
16,  on  the  other  the  enthusiastic  exclauialion  of  the  lielieving  wcman,  vers.  27,  28, 
furnish  Jesus  with  the  slarting-poiuls  for  His  two  contrasted  desciiptious — that  of 
growing  blindness  which  terminates  in  midnight  darkness,  and  that  of  gradual  illumi- 
nation which  leads  to  perfect  glory.     Wc  may,  after  this,  estimate  the  justness  of 


330  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Holtzmanu's  judgment :  "It  is  impossible  to  conuect  this  passage  about  ligbt,  in  a 
simple  and  natural  vvay,  witli  tlie  discourse  respecting  Jonas." 

8.  Tlie  Dinner  at  a  Pharisee  s  House  :  11  :  37-12  :  12.— Agreeably  to  the  coun«ction 
established  by  Luke  himself  (12  :  1),  we  jom  the  two  pieces  11  :  b7-54  and  12  :  1-12 
in  one  whole.  Here,  so  far  as  Galilee  is  concerned,  we  have  the  culminating  point 
of  the  struggle  between  Jesus  and  the  pharisaic  party.  This  period  finds  its  couniui- 
part  in  Judea,  in  the  scenes  related  John  8,  10.  The  background  of  the  contlict 
which  now  ensues  is  still  the  odious  accusation  refuted  in  the  previous  passage. 
The  actual  situation  assigned  to  the  repast  is,  according  to  Hollzmanu,  merely  a  tic- 
tiun,  the  idea  of  which  had  been  suggested  to  Luke  by  the  figures  of  vers.  39  and  40. 
Is  it  not  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  images  of  vers.  39  and  40  were  suggested 
to  Jesus  by  the  actual  sltuatiim,  which  was  that  of  a  repast  ?  It  is  true,  a  great  many 
of  the  sayings  which  compose  this  discourse  are  found  placed  by  Matthew  in  a  dif- 
ferent connection  ;  they  form  part  of  the  great  discourse  in  which  Jesus  denounced 
the  divine  malediction  on  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  temple  a  few  days  before 
His  death  (Matt.  23).  But  first  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  Hollzmaun  gives  as  little 
credit  to  the  pl;lce  which  those  sayings  occupy  in  (he  composition  of  Matthew,  as  to 
the  "scenery"  of  Luke.  Then  we  have  already  found  too  many  examples  of  the 
process  of  aggregation  used  in  the  first  Gospel,  to  have  our  confidence  shaken  thereby 
in  the  narrative  of  Luke.  We  shall  inquire,  therefore,  with  impartialil3%  as  we  pro- 
ceed, which  of  the  two  situations  is  that  which  best  suits  the  words  of  Jesus. 

This  piece  contains  :  \st.  The  rebukes  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  (vers.  37-44) ; 
2d.  Those  addressed  to  the  scribes  (vers.  45-54) ;  M.  The  encouragements  given  to 
the  disciples  in  face  of  the  animosity  to  which  they  are  exposed  on  the  part  of  those 
enraged  adversaries  (12  :  1-12). 

1st.  To  the  Pharisees:  vers.  37-44.— Vers.  37  and  38.*  Tlie  Occasion.— This 
Pharisee  had  probably  been  one  of  the  hearers  of  the  previous  discourse  ;  perhaps 
one  of  the  authois  of  the  accusation  raised  against  Jesus.  He  had  invited  Jesus  along 
with  a  certain  number  of  his  own  colleagues  (vers.  45  and  53),  with  the  must  malevo- 
lent intention.  Thus  is  explained  the  tone  of  Jesus  (ver  39,  et  seq.),  which  socae  com- 
mentators have  pronounced  impolite  (!).  The  reading  of  some  Fathers  and  Vss., 
"  He  began  to  doubt  (or  to  murmur,  as  (haKpivenfjai  sometimes  means  in  the  LXX.), 
and  to  say,"  is  evidently  a  paraplirase.  'Kplotov,  the  morning  meal,  as  delirvov,  the 
principal  meal  of  the  day.  The  meaning  of  the  expression  el'7F:'A0dv  averveaev  is  this  : 
He  seated  Himself  without  ceremony,  as  He  was  when  He  entered.  The  Pharisees 
laid  great  stress  on  the  rite  of  purification  before  meals  (Mark  7  :  2-4  ;  Matt.  15  : 1-3)  ; 
and  the  Rabbins  put  the  act  of  eating  with  unwashed  hands  in  the  same  cate- 
gory as  the  sin  of  impurity.  From  the  surprise  of  His  host,  Jesus  takes  occasion  to 
stigmatize  the  false  devotion  of  the  Pharisees  ;  He  does  not  mince  matters  ;  for  after 
what  has  just  passed  (ver.  15),  war  is  openly  declared.  He  denounces  :  Isi.  The 
hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  (vers.  39-42)  ;  2d.  Their  vainglorious  spirit  (ver.  43  ;  Sd. 
The  evil  influence  which  their  false  devotion  exercises  over  the  whole  people 
(ver.  44). 

Vers.  39-42. f  Their  Hypocrisy. — "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  hira,  Now  do  ye  Phar- 

*  Ver.  38.  Instead  of  i6uv  eOavfiaasv  on,  D.  Syr'^"^  ltpi<""'i"e^  Vg.  Tert.  ;  VP^ara 
diaKpivofxevoi  ev  eavru  /ieyecv  diari. 

f  Ver.  42.  i^^  B.  L.  2  Mnn.,  napeivat  instead  of  a^Lsva:. 


niAP.   XI.  :  ;)7-44.  3:U 

isees  make  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  plattor  ;  but  your  inward  part  is  tuU 
of  raveuiug  and  wickedness.  40.  Ye  fodls,  did  not  lie  lliat  made  that  wiiich  is  willi- 
out,  make  llmt  which  is  within  also?  41.  Kathcr  give  alms  of  such  things  as  are 
within  ;  and,  behold,  all  things  are  clean  nut  >  you.  43.  But  woe  unto  you,  I'lKiii- 
sees  !  for  ye  tilhc  mint  and  lue,  and  all  manner  of  heibs,  und  pass  over  jiulmncnt 
and  the  love  of  God:  these  ought  ye  to  ha\edone,  and  not  to  have  the  other  un- 
done."  God  had  appointed  for  His  pople  certain  washings,  that  they  might  culti- 
vate the  sense  of  moial  purity  in  His  presence.  And  this  is  what  the  I'harisecM  havo 
brought  the  rite  to  ;  multiplying  its  applicatiiuis  at  their  pleasure,  lliey  think  them- 
selves excused  thereby  from  the  duty  of  heart  purification.  Was  it  possible  to  go 
more  directly  in  opposition  to  the  divine  intention  :  to  destroy  the  practice  of  the 
duty  by  their  practices,  the  end  by  the  means  ?  Meyer  and  Bletk  translate  I'fi',  now, 
in  the  sense  of  time  :  "  Things  have  now  come  to  such  a  pass  with  you  .  .  ."  It 
is  more  natural  to  give  it  the  logical  sense  which  it  often  has  :  "  Well  now  !  There 
you  are.  you  Pharisees  '  I  take  j^ou  in  the  act."  If,  in  the  second  member  of  the 
verse,  the  term  to  eaudev,  the  inward  part,  was  not  supplemented  by  iiyuui',  your 
inward  part,  the  most  natural  sense  of  the  first  member  would  be  thus  :  "  Ye  make 
clean  the  outside  of  the  vessels  in  which  ye  serve  up  the  repast  to  j'our  guests." 
Bleek  maintains  this  meauing  for  the  first  proposition,  notwithstanding  the  vudv  in 
the  second,  bj' joining  this  pron.  to  the  two  substantives,  upTr-ay/ji  and  novijinas  :  "  But 
the  inside  [of  the  cups  anu  platters]  is  full  [of  the  products]  of  your  raveniugs  and 
^?<?*  wickedness."  But  1.  This  connection  of  vfiijv  is  forced;  2.  Ver.  40  does  not 
admit  of  this  sense,  for  we  must  understand  by  Him  who  made  both  that  which  is  with- 
out and  that  which  is  within,  the  potter  who  made  the  plates,  the  goldsmith  who 
fashioned  the  cups,  which  is  absurd.  As  in  ver.  40  the  6  noir/aai,  He  that  made,  is 
very  evidently  the  Creator,  the  inicard  part,  ver.  40  and  ver.  31),  can  only  be  that  of 
man,  the  heart.  We  must  therefore  allow  an  ellipsis  in  ver.  39,  such  as  frequently 
occurs  in  comparisons,  and  by  which,  for  the  sake  of  conciseness,  one  of  the  two 
terms  is  suppressed  in  each  member  of  the  comparison  :  "  Like  a  host  who  should 
set  before  his  guests  plates  and  cups  perfectly  cleansed  outside,  [but  full  of  filth 
inside],  39a,  ye  think  to  please  God  by  presenting  to  Him  [your  bodies  purified  by 
lustrations,  but  at  the  same  time]  your  inward  part  full  of  ravening  and  wickedness, 
39&."  The  inward  part  denotes  the  whole  moral  side  of  human  life,  'kpnayi),  raven' 
ing — avarice  carried  out  in  act ;  novripia,  icickedness — the  inner  corruption  which  is  the 
source  of  it.     Jesus  ascends  from  sin  in  act  to  its  first  principle. 

The  apostrophe,  ye  fools,  ver.  40,  is  then  easily  understood,  as  well  as  the  argu- 
ment on  which  it  rests.  God,  wiio  made  the  body,  made  the  soul  also  ;  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  one  cannot  therefore,  in  His  eyes,  be  a  substitute  for  the  other.  A  well- 
cleansed  body  will  not  render  a  polluted  soul  accei)table  to  Him,  any  more  than  a 
bright'y  polished  platter  will  render  distasteful  meat  agreeable  to  a  guest ;  for  God  is 
a  spirU.  TLis  principle  lays  pharisaism  in  the  dust.  Some  commentators  have  given 
1h[3  verse  another  meaning,  which  Luther  seems  to  adopt :  "  The  man  who  has  made 
(pure)  the  outside,  has  not  thereby  made  (pure)  the  inside."  But  this  meaning  of 
iroulv  is  inadmissible,  and  the  nvx  heading  the  proposition  proves  that  it  is  interroga- 
tive. The  meaning  of  the  parallel  passage  in  Matt.  23  :  25.  2(5  is  somewhat  different  : 
"  The  contents  of  the  cup  and  platter  must  be  purified  by  filling  them  only  with 
goods  lawfully  acquired  ;  in  this  way,  the  outside,  should  it  even  be  indifferently 
cleansed,  will  yet  be  sufficiently  pure."     It  is  at  bottom  the  same  thought,  but  sum- 


o'.iZ  COMMEXTAUY    UX    ,ST.   LUKE. 

rientlv  modified  in  form,  to  prove  that  Ihe  change  cannot  be  explained  by  the  use  of 
out!  and  the  same  written  source,  but  must  arise  from  oral  tradiliou.  To  the  rebuke 
ad.iunistered  there  succeeds  the  counsel,  ver.  41.  We  have  translated  ttAt/v  by  rather. 
iHie  literal  sense,  excepting,  is  thus  explained  :  "  All  those  absurdities  swept  away, 
here  is  wliat  alone  remains."  At  first  sight,  this  saying  appears  to  correspond  with 
tlie  idea  expressed  in  Matthew's  text,  rather  than  with  the  previous  saying  in  Luke. 
For  the  expression  rd  ivovra,  that  which  is  within,  cannot  in  this  verse  refer  lo  the 
inward  part  of  man,  but  denotes  undoubtedly  the  contents  of  the  cups  and  platters. 
But  it  is  precisely  because  to.  ivovra,  that  whicli,  is  within,  is  not  at  all  synonymous  with 
eauOev,  ihe  inward  part,  in  the  precedmg  context,  that  Luke  has  employed  a  different 
expression.  Ta  evovra,  the  contents  of  the  cups  and  platters,  denotes  what  remains  in 
those  vessels  at  the  close  of  the  feast.  The  meaning  is  :  "  Do  j'ou  wish,  then,  that 
those  meats  and  those  wines  should  not  be  defiled,  and  should  not  defile  you  ?  Do  not 
think  that  it  is  enough  for  you  carefully  to  wash  your  hands  before  eating  ;  there  is  a 
surer  means  :  let  some  poor  maa  partake  of  them.  It  is  the  spirit  of  love,  O  ye 
Pharisees,  and  not  material  lustrations,  which  will  purify  your  banquets."  Kal  'i6ov, 
and  behold  ;  the  result  will  be  produced  as  if  by  the  magic.  Is  it  not  scllishness  which 
is  the  real  pollution  in  the  eyes  of  God  ?  The  (Jure,  give,  is  opposed  to  upTrayrj,  raven- 
ing, ver.  39.  This  saying  by  no  means  includes  the  idea  of  the  merit  of  woiks. 
Could  Jesus  fall  into  pharisaism  at  the  very  moment  when  He  was  laying  it  in  the 
dust?  Love,  which  gives  value  to  the  gift,  excludes  by  its  very  nature  that  seeking 
of  merit  which  is  the  essence  of  pharisaism. 

The  uAld,  hut,  ver.  42,  sets  the  conduct  of  the  Pharisees  in  opposition  to  that 
which  has  been  described  ver.  41,  in  order  to  condemn  them  by  a  new  contrast  ;  still, 
however,  it  is  the  antithesis  between  observances  and  moral  obedience.  Every 
Israelite  was  required  to  pay  the  tithe  of  his  income  (Lev.  27  :  30  ;  Num.  18  :  21). 
The  Pharisees  had  extended  this  command  to  the  smallest  productions  in  their  gar- 
dens, such  as  mint,  rue,  and  herbs,  of  which  the  law  had  said  nothing,  Matthew 
mentions  other  plants,  anise  and  cummin  (23  :  23).  Could  it  be  conceived  that  the 
one  writer  could  have  made  so  fiivolous  a  change  on  the  text  of  the  other,  or  on  a 
common  document?  In  opposition  to  those  pitiful  returns,  which  are  their  own 
invention,  Jesus  sets  the  fundamental  obligations  imposed  by  the  law,  which  they 
neglect  without  scruple.  Kpinti,  judgment:  here  the  discernment  of  what  is  just, 
the  good  sense  of  the  heart,  including  justice  and  equity  (Sirach  33  :  34).  Matthew 
adds  f^EoS  and  niarii,  mercy  andfaifJi,  und  omits  the  love  of  God,  which  Luke  gives. 
The  two  virtues  indicated  by  the  latter  correspond  to  the  two  parts  of  the  summary 
of  the  law.  The  moderation  and  wisdom  of  Jesus  are  conspicuous  in  the  last  w^ords 
of  the  verse  ;  He  will  in  no  wise  break  the  old  legal  mould,  provided  it  is  not  kept  at 
the  expense  of  its  contents. 

Ver.  43.*  Vainglory. — "  Woe  unto  you,  Pharisees  !  for  ye  love  the  uppermost 
Beats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the  maikets."  The  uppermost  seats  in  the 
synagogues  were  reserved  for  the  doctors.  Tliis  rebuke  is  found  more  fully  devel- 
oped, 20  :  45-47. 

Ver.  44.  Contagions  Inflvcjice. — "  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypo- 
crites !  for  ye  are  as  graves  which  appear  not,  and  the  men  that  walk  over  them  are 

*  Ver.  43.  i*.  B.  C.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr'="^  Itr''-"qne^  q^-^H  jpaf^/mreiS  kul  ^apiuaioi. 
■or'^Kotrai,  which  the  T.  B.  here  adds  with  the  other  documents  (taken  from  Matthew). 


cuw.   xr.  :  4:J--lfi.  333 

not  nware  of  them."  Jesus  by  this  figure  describes  the  moral  fact  "wliich  lie  else, 
•where  designates  as  i/ie  leaven  of  the  PUariisees.  Accurdiug  to  Num.  19  :  10,  to  touch 
a  grave  rendered  a  muu  iiticleau  for  ciglil  days,  as  did  the  touch  of  a  dead  body. 
Nothing  more  easy,  tlien,  than  for  one  to  defile  himself  by  touching  with  his  foot  a 
grave  ou  a  level  with  the  ground,  without  even  suspecting  its  existence.  Such  is 
contact  with  the  Pharisees  ;  men  think  they  have  to  do  with  saints  :  they  yield  them- 
selves up  to  their  influence,  and  become  infected  with  their  spirit  of  pride  and  hypcc- 
risy,  against  which  they  were  not  put  on  their  guard.  In  Matthew  (23  :  27),  the  sjune 
figure  receives  a  somewhat  dill'erent  application.  A  man  looks  with  complacency  at 
a  sepulchre  will  built  and  whitened,  and  admires  it.  But  when,  on  reflection,  he 
says"  AVithiu  there  is  nothing  save  rottenness,  what  a  different  impression  does  be 
e.xpcrience  I  Such  is  the  feeling  which  results  from  observing  the  Pharisees.  That 
the  two  texts  should  be  borrowed  from  the  same  document,  or  taken  the  one  from 
the  other,  is  quite  as  inconceivable  as  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  oral  tradition 
should  have  given  to  the  same  figure  those  two  difl^'ereut  applications. 

2d.  To  (he  Scribes :  vers.  45-54. — A  remark  made  b}'  a  scribe  gives  a  now  turn  to 
the  conversation.  The  Pharisees  were  only  a  religious  party  ;  but  the  scribes,  tho 
experts  in  the  law,  formed  a  profession  strictly  so  called.  They  were  the  learned, 
t/ie  wise,  who  discovered  nice  prescriptions  in  the  law.  such  as  that  alluded  to  in  ver. 
42,  and  gave  them  over  for  the  observance  of  their  pious  disciples.  The  scribes 
played  the  part  of  clerical  guides.  The  majority  of  them  seem  to  have  belonged  to 
the  Pharisaic  party  ;  for  we  meet  with  no  others  in  the  X.  T.  But  their  official  dig- 
city  gave  them  a  higher  place  in  the  theocracy  than  that  of  a  mere  part}'.  Hence  the 
exclamation  of  him  who  here  interrupts  Jesus  :  "  Thus  saying,  Thou  reproachest  us, 
us  scribes  also,"  which  evidently  constitutes  in  his  eyes  a  much  graver  offence  than 
that  of  reproaching  the  Pharisees.  In  His  answer  Jesus  upbraids  them  on  three 
grounds,  as  He  had  done  the  Pharisees  :  1st.  Religious  intellect  ualism  (ver.  46)  ; 
2d.  Persecuting  fanaticism  (vers.  47-51)  ;  Sd.  The  pernicious  influence  which  they 
exercised  on  the  religious  slate  of  the  people  (ver.  52).  Ver.  58  and  54  describe 
the  end  of  the  feast. 

Vers.  45  and  46.*  Literalism. — "  Then  answered  one  of  the  lawyers,  and  said  unto 
him,  blaster,  thus  saying  thou  reproachest  us  also.  46.  And  He  said.  Woe  unto  you 
also,  ye  lawyers  !  for  ye  lade  men  with  burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  j^e  your- 
selves touch  not  the  burdens  with  one  of  j'our  fingers."  There  seems  to  be  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  terms  voniK^r,  vojuoi^K^daicnAoZ,  and  ypafi/xarevi.  See  ver. 
53  ;  and  comp.  ver.  52  with  Matt.  23  :  13.  Yet  there  must  be  a  shade  of  difference  at 
least  between  the  words  ;  according  to  the  etymology,  vofiiKoi  denotes  the  expert,  the 
casuist,  who  discusses  doubtful  cases,  the  Mosaic  jurist,  as  Meyer  says  ;  vofj.o6i6da- 
KoXoc,  the  doctor,  the  professor  who  gives  public  or  private  courses  of  Mosaic  law  ; 
yfjafifiarevi  would  inciude  in  general  all  those  who  are  occupied  with  the  Scriptures, 
either  in  the  way  of  theoretical  teaching  or  practical  application. 

Our  Lord  answers  the  scribe,  as  He  had  answered  the  Pharisee,  in  three  sentences 
of  condemnation.  The  first  rebuke  is  the  counterpart  of  that  which  He  had  ad- 
dressed in  the  first  place  to  the  latter,  to  wit,  literalism  ;  this  is  the  twin  brother  of 
formalism.     The  paid  scribes  were  infinitely  less  respectable  than  the  generalitj'  of 

*  Ver.  46.  G.  31.  some  Mnn.  ItP'"'''!''*,  Yg.,  evi  nu  danTvlu  instead  of  evL  tu)> 
iaKTvAuv. 


334  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

the  Pharisees.  As  to  those  minute  prescriptions  which  they  discovered  daily  in  the 
law,  and  which  they  recommended  to  the  zeal  of  devotees,  they  had  small  regard  for 
them  in  their  own  practice.  They  seemed  to  imagine  that,  so  far  as  they  were  con- 
cerned, the  knowing  dispensed  with  the  doing.  Such  is  the  procedure  characterized 
by  Jesus  in  ver.  46.  Constantly  drawing  the  heaviest  burdens  from  the  law,  they 
bind  them  on  the  shoulders  of  the  simple.  But  as  to  themselves,  they  make  not  the 
slightest  effort  to  lift  them. 

Vers.  47-51.*  Persecuting  Orthodoxy. — "  Woe  unto  you  !  for  yQ  build  the  sepul- 
chres of  the  prophets,  and  your  fathers  killed  them.  48.  Truly  ye  are  witnesses  that 
ye  allow  the  deeds  of  your  fathers  :  for  they  indeed  killed  them,  and  ye  build  their 
sepulchres.  49.  Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God,  I  will  send  them  prophets 
and  apostles,  and  some  of  them  they  shall  slay  and  persecute  :  50.  That  the  blood  of 
all  the  prophets,  which  was  shed  from  the  foimdation  of  the  world,  may  be  required 
of  this  generation  ;  51.  From  the  blood  of  Abel,  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  whicti 
perished  between  the  altar  and  the  temple  :  verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  required 
of  this  generation."  Head  religion  is  almost  alwaj's  connected  with  hatred  of  living 
piety,  or  spiritual  religion,  and  readily  becomes  persecuting.  All  travellers,  and  par- 
ticularly Robinson,  mention  the  remarkable  tombs,  called  tombs  of  the  prophets, 
which  are  seen  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem.  It  was  perhaps  at  that  time  that  the 
Jews  were  busied  with  those  structures  ;  they  thought  thereby  to  make  amends  for 
the  injustice  of  their  fathers.  By  a  bold  turn,  which  translates  the  external  act  into 
a  thought  opposed  to  its  ostensible  object,  but  in  accordance  with  its  real  spirit, 
Jesus  says  to  them  :  "  Your  fathers  killed  ;  ye  bury  ;  therefore  ye  continue  and  fin- 
ish their  work."  In  the  received  reading,  fxaprvpelTe,  ye  bear  witness,  signifies: 
"  When  ye  bury,  ye  give  testimony  to  the  reality  of  the  bloodshed  committed  by 
your  fathers."  But  the  Alex,  reading  juap-rvpe?  ears,  ye  are  witnesses,  is  undoubtedly 
preferable.  It  includes  an  allusion  to  the  official  part  played  by  witnesses  in  the 
punishment  of  stoning  (Deut.  17  :  7  ;  Acts  7  :  58).  It  is  remarkable  that  the  two 
terras  /udprvi  icitness,  and  awevSoKelv,  to  approve,  are  also  found  united  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  Stephen's  martyrdom.  They  seem  to  have  had  a  technical  significance. 
Thus  :  "  Ye  take  the  part  of  witnesses  and  consummators  of  your  fathers'  crimes." 
The  reading  of  the  Alex.,  which  omit  avruv  tu  /ni'Tj/iela,  their  graves,  at  the  end  of  ver. 
48,  has  a  forcible  conciseness.  Unfortunately  those  Mss.  with  the  T.  R.  read  avrovc 
after  cnriicTeivav  ;  and  this  regimen  of  the  first  verb  appears  to  settle  that  of  the  sec- 
ond. In  connection  with  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  toward  their  prophets,  whom  they 
slew,  and  honored  immediately  after  their  death,  the  saying  has  been  righlly  quoted  : 
sit  licet  divus,  dumtnodo  non  vivus.  The  parallel  passage  in  Matthew  (23  :  29-31)  has  a 
rather  difi"erent  sense  :  "  Ye  say,  If  we  had  been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we 
would  not  have  been  partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  prophets  ;  Wherefore 
ye  witness  against  yourselves,  that  ye  are  the  children  of  them  which  killed  the 
prophets."  The  oneness  of  sentiment  is  here  proved,  not  by  the  act  of  building  the 
tombs,  but  by  the  word  children.  The  two  forms  show  such  a  difference,  that  they 
could  not  proceed  from  one  and  the  same  document.  That  of  Luke  appears  every 
way  preferable.  In  Matthew,  the  relation  between  the  words  put  by  Jesus  into  the 
mouth  of  the  Jews,  ver.  30,  and  the  building  of  the  tombs,  ver.  29,  is  not  clear. 

*  Ver.  47.  2**.  C,  km  ol  instead  of  oi  f5c.  Ver.  48.  i^.  B.  L.,  finpTvpEi  enre  instead 
of  p-aprvpeiTE  (taken  from  Matthew),  ii.  B.  D.  L.  It*'"i.  o;nit  avruv  rd  fivij^iela  after 
ouio6onuTE.     Ver.  49.  Marcion  omitted  vers.  49-51. 


<'IIAI>.   XI.  :  \:-'A.  335 

Aid.  TovTo  Kai ;  "  Ami  bcciiuse  the  matter  is  rciilly  so,  notwithstandini;  appearances 
to  the  contrary,  the  wisdom  of  God  liath  said."  AVhat  does  .Jesus  undti stand  liy  the 
wisdom  of  God  V  Ewald,  Bleek,  etc.,  thinli  tliat  Jtsiis  is  here  quolini;  a  lost  book, 
wliivli  assigned  tills  saying  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  or  which  itself  bore  this  title. 
Bleek  supposes  that  the  quotation  from  this  book  does  not  go  further  than  to  the  mi, 
ver.  51  :  tiie  discourse  of  Jesus  is  resumed  at  the  words.  Verily  1  sdi/  vnto  you.  But, 
1.  The  discourses  of  .Jesus  present  no  other  example  of  an  extra-canonical  (piotation  ; 
8.  The  term  apostle,  in  what  follows,  seems  to  betray  the  language  of  .Jesus  Himself  ; 
3.  The  thought  of  vers,.  50  and  51  is  too  profound  and  m^'slerious  to  be  ascribed  to 
any  human  source  whatever.  According  to  3Ieyer,  we  have  indeed  a  saying  of  Jesug 
here  ;  but  as  it  was  repeated  in  oral  tradition,  it  had  become  a  habit,  out  of  reverence 
for  Jesus,  to  quote  it  in  this  form  :  The  wisdom  of  God  (.Jesus)  said,  I  send  .  .  . 
Comp.  Matt.  23  :  34  :  1  send  (q  ti  aTToaTi?J.cj).  This  form  of  quotation  was  mistakenly 
regarded  by  Luke  as  forming  jiart  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus.  But  Jjuke  has  not 
made  us  familiar  thus  far  with  such  blunders  ;  and  the  (Uu  tovto,  on  account  of  this — 
which  falls  so  admirably  into  the  context  of  Luke,  and  which  is  found  identically  in 
Matthew,  where  it  has,  so  to  speak,  no  meaning  (as  IloUzniann  a(;knowledges,  p.  228) 
— is  a  striking  proof  in  favor  of  the  exactness  of  the  document  from  which  Jjuke 
draws.  Baur  thinks  that  by  the  word,  the  wisdom  of  God,  Luke  means  to  designate 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  itself  already  received  in  the  Church  as  God's  word  at  the 
time  when  Luke  wrote.  But  it  must  first  be  proved  that  Luke  knew  and  used  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew.  Our  exegesis  at  every  step  has  proved  the  contrary  ;  besides, 
we  have  uo  example  of  an  apostolical  author  having  quoted  the  writing  of  one  of  his 
colleagues  with  such  a  formula  of  quotation.  Neander  and  Gess  think  that  here  Ave 
have  a  mere  parenthesis  inserted  by  J^uke,  in  which  he  reminds  us  in  passing  of  a 
saying  which  Jesus  in  point  of  fact  did  not  utter  till  later  (Matt.  2t>).  An  interpola- 
tion of  this  kind  is  far  from  natural.  The  solitary  instance  which  could  possibly  be 
cited  (Luke  7  :  29,  30)  seems  to  us  more  than  doubtful. 

Olshausen  asserts  that  Jesus  intends  an  allusion  to  the  words  (2  Chron.  24  :  19) : 
"  He  sent  prophets  to  them,  to  bring  them  again  unto  Him  ;  but  ihey  would  not  re- 
ceive them."  But  the  connection  between  those  two  sayings  is  very  indirect.  I 
think  there  is  a  more  satisfactory  solution.  The  book  of  the  O.  T.  which  in  the 
primitive  Church  as  well  as  among  the  Jews,  in  common  with  the  books  of  Jesus 
Sirach  and  Wisdom,  bore  the  name  of  ao(pia,  or  tcisdom  of  God,  was  that  of  Proverbs.* 
Xow  here  is  the  passage  which  we  find  in  that  book  (1  :  20-31) :  "  Wisdom  uttereth 
her  voice  in  the  streets  and  crieth  in  the  chief  places  of  concourse  .  .  .  Behold, 
I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  you  (LXX.,  e/^i/i  jdw/S  ^rjaiv),  and  I  will  make  known 
my  words  unto  j'ou  .  .  .  But  ye  liave  set  at  nought  all  my  counsel,  and  would 
none  of  my  reproof.  Therefore  I  will  lauuh  at  j'our  calamity,  I  will  mock  when 
your  fear  cometh  .  .  .  (and  I  shall  say).  Let  them  eat  of  the  fruit  of  their 
works  !"  This  is  the  passage  which  Jesus  seems  to  me  to  quote.  For  the  breath  of 
His  Spirit,  whom  God  promises  to  send  to  His  people  to  instruct  and  reprove  them, 
Jesus  substitutes  the  living  organs  of  the  Spirit — Ills  apostles,  the  new  prophets  ; 
then  lie  applies  to  the  Jews  of  the  day  (ver.  49/>)  the  sin  of  obstinate  resistance  pro- 
oiaimed  in  the  same  passage  ;  finally  (vers.  50,  51),  He  paraphrases  the  idea  of  linal 

*  Clemens  Rom.,  Irenseus,  Hegesippus  call  it  rj  -iravupeToi  auoin  ;  Melito  (accord- 
ing to  the  reading  ^  Kai,  (Eus.  iv.  33,  ed.  Lsemm.)  aoipia.  See  Wieseler,  "  Stud,  und 
Krilik."  1856,  1. 


33G  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

puaialiment,  which  closes  this  prophecy.  The  parallelism  seems  to  us  to  be  com- 
plete, aud  juslilies  iu  the  most  natuiai  manner  the  use  of  the  term,  the  wimlohi  of  (Jod. 
By  the  words  prophets  and  apostles  Jesus  contrasts  this  new  race  of  the  !S[)irit'3 
agents,  wiiich  is  to  continue  the  work  of  the  old,  with  the  men  of  the  dead  letter, 
■with  those  scribes  whom  lie  is  now  addressing.  The  lot  which  lies  before  them  at 
the  bauds  of  the  latter  will  be  precisely  the  same  as  the  prophets  had  to  meet  at  ihe 
hands  of  their  fathers  ;  thus  to  the  sin  of  the  fathers  there  will  be  justly  added  that 
of  the  children,  until  the  measure  be  full.  It  is  a  law  of  the  Divine goveinmeut, 
which  controls  the  lot  of  societies  as  well  as  that  of  individuals,  that  God  does  not 
correct  a  development  once  commenced  by  premature  judgment.  While  still  warn- 
ing the  sinner,  He  leaves  his  sin  to  ripen  ;  and  at  the  appointed  hour  He  strikes,  not 
for  tiie  present  wickedness  only,  but  for  all  which  preceded.  The  continuous  unity 
of  the  sin  of  the  fathers  involves  their  descendants,  who,  while  able  to  change  their 
conduct,  persevere  and  go  all  the  length  of  the  way  opened  up  by  the  former.  This 
continuation  on  the  part  of  the  children  includes  an  implicit  assent,  in  virtue  of 
which  they  become  accomplices,  responsible  for  the  entire  development.  A  decided 
breaking  away  from  the  path  followed  was  the  only  thing  which  could  avail  to  rid 
them  of  this  terrible  implication  in  the  entire  guilt.  According  to  this  law  it  is  that 
Jesus  sees  coming  on  the  Israel  round  about  Him  the  whole  storm  of  wrath  which 
has  gathered  from  the  torrents  of  innocent  blood  shed  since  the  beginning  of  the  hu- 
man race.  Comp.  the  two  threatenings  of  St.  Paul,  which  look  like  a  commentary 
on  this  passage  (Rom.  3:3-5;  1  Thess.  2  :  15,  16). 

Jesus  quotes  the  first  and  last  examples  of  martyrdoms  mentioned  in  the  canoni- 
cal history  of  the  old  covenant.  Zacharias,  the  son  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada,  ac- 
cording to  2  Chron.  24  :  20,  was  stoned  iu  the  temple  court  by  order  of  King  Joash. 
As  Chronicles  probably  formed  the  last  book  of  the  Jewish  canon,  this  murder,  the 
last  related  iu  the  O.  T.,  was  the  natural  counterpart  to  that  of  Abel.  Jesus  evi- 
dently alludes  to  the  words  of  Genesis  (4:10),  "  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  cri- 
eth  from  the  ground,"  and  to  those  of  the  dying  Zacharias,  "  The  Lord  look  upon  it, 
anl  require  it."  Comp.  skI^jittiOt/,  ver.  50,  and  sKl^rjTTfliqaEraL,  ver.  51  (in  Luke).  If 
Matthew  calls  Zacharias  the  son  of  Barachias,  it  may  be  reconciled  with  2  Chron.  24 
by  supposing  that  Jehoiada,  who  must  then  have  been  130  years  of  age,  was  his 
grandfather,  and  that  the  name  of  his  father  Barachias  is  omitted  because  lie  had  died 
long  before.  Anyhow,  if  there  was  an  error,  it  must  be  charged  against  the  com- 
piler of  the  first  Gospel  (as  is  proved  by  the  form  of  Luke),  not  against  Jesus. 

Ver.  53  :  The  Monopoly  of  Theology. — "  Woe  unto  you,  lawyers  !  for  ye  have 
taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge  :  ye  entered  not  in  yourselves,  and  them  that  were 
entering  in  ye  hindered."  The  religious  despotism  with  which  Jesus  in  the  third 
place  charges  the  scribes,  is  a  natural  consequencie  of  their  fanatical  attachment  to 
the  letter.  This  last  rebuke  corresponds  to  the  third  which  He  had  addressed  to  the 
Pharisees — the  pernicious  influence  exercised  by  them  over  the  whole  people.  Jesus 
represents  knowledge,  {yvuatc)  under  the  figure  of  a  temple,  into  which  the  scribes 
should  have  led  the  people,  but  whose  g-ate  they  close,  and  hold  the  key  with  jealous 
care.  This  knowledge  is  not  that  of  the  gospel,  a  meaning  which  would  lead  us  out- 
side the  domain  of  the  scribes  ;  it  is  the  real  living  knowledge  of  God,  such  as  might 
alread3r  be  found,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  O.  T.  The  key  is  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  interpretation  of  which  the  scribes  reserved  exclusively  to  themselves. 
But  their  commentaries,  instead  of  tearing  aside  the  veil  of  the  letter,  that  their  hear- 


ciiAF.   XII.  :  1-3.  337 

ers  mii^Iit  penetrate  to  tht-  spirit,  tbickeued  it,  ou  the  contrury,  as  if  to  prevent  Israel 
fiiuu  belmlditig  the  face  of  the  liviug  God  who  revealed  llimseU'  in  the  O.  T.,  and 
fiom  couiiug  iuto  coutact  wilh  Ilim  The  pres.  part,  ciaepxofitvoi  denotes  those  who 
weie  ready  to  rise  to  this  vital  knowledge,  and  who  only  lacked  the  sound  interpreta- 
tion of  Sciipture  to  biing  Iheni  to  it. 

Mullhew,  in  a  long  discourse  which  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  in  the  temple 
(chap.  2o),  has  combiued  in  one  compact  mass  the  contents  of  those  two  apostrophes 
addressed  to  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers,  which  are  so  nicely  distinguished  hy  Luke. 
.Jesus  certainly  uttered  in  the  temple,  as  Matthew  relates,  a  vigorous  discourse 
addressed  to  the  scribes  and  Piiarisees.  Luke  himself  (20  :  45-47)  indicates  the  time, 
and  gives  a  summary  of  it.  But  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  here,  as  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  the  lirst  Gospel  has  combined  many  sayingn  uttered  on  different  ccca- 
Rions,  The  distribution  of  accusations  between  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers,  as  we 
find  ft  in  Luke,  corresponds  perfectly  to  the  characters  of  those  two  classes.  The 
question  of  the  scribe  (ver.  4.j)  seems  to  be  indisputably  authentic.  Thus  Luke  shows 
himself  here  again  the  historian  properly  so  called. 

Vers,  iio  and  54.*  Iliatoricdl  Conclusion. — These  verses  describe  a  scene  of  violence, 
perhnps  unique,  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Numerous  vaiiations  prove  the  very  early 
alteration  of  the  text.  According  to  tlic  reading  of  the  principal  Alex.,  And  irheii 
He  had  gone  thence,  this  scene  must  have  taken  place  after  Jesus  had  left  the  Phari- 
see's house  ;  but  this  reading  seems  designed  to  establish  a  closer  connection  with 
what  follows  (13  :  1,  et  seq.),  and  produces  the  impression  of  a  gloss.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  omission  of  the  words,  and  scekinr/,  and  that  they  might  accuse  Ilim,  in  B. 
L.  (ver.  54),  renders  the  turn  of  expression  more  simple  and  lively.  The  reading 
aTToaTu/iii^^iiv  (to  blunt)  has  no  meaning.  We  must  read  aivuaro/xan^eiv,  to  utter,  and 
then  to  cause  to  utter. 

od.  To  the  Disciples :  12  : 1-12. — This  violent  scene  had  found  its  echo  outside  ; 
a  considerable  crowd  had  flocked  together.  Excited  by  the  animosity  of  their  chiefs, 
the  multitude  showed  a  disposition  hostile  to  Jesus  and  His  disciples.  Jesus  feels  the 
need  of  turning  to  His  own,  and  giving  them,  in  presence  of  all,  those  encouragements 
which  their  faituation  demands.  Besides,  He  has  uttered  a  word  which  must  have 
gone  to  their  inmost  heart,  some  of  you,  they  will  slay  and  persecute,  and  He  feels  the 
need  of  supplying  some  counterpoise.  Thus  is  explained  the  exhortation  which  fol- 
lows, and  which  has  for  its  object  to  raise  their  courage  and  give  them  boldness  in 
testifying.  ]\Iust  not  one  be  very  hard  to  please,  to  challenge,  as  iloltzmaan  does, 
the  reality  of  a  situation  so  simple? 

Jesus  encourages  His  apostles  :  1st.  By  the  certainty  of  the  success  of  their  cause 
(vers.  1-y)  ;  2d.  By  the  assurance  which  lie  gives  them  as  to  their  persons  (vers.  4-7) ; 
"id.  By  the  promise  of  a  glorious  recompense,  which  He  contrasts  witii  the  punish- 
ment of  the  timid,  and  of  their  adversaries  (vers.  8-10)  ;  finally,  B3'  the  assurance 
of  powerful  aid  (vers.  11,  12). 

Vers,  l-o  :f    TJie  Assured  'Success  of  tJieir  Ministry,   and  the  Fall  oj  their  Adver- 

*  Ver.  5.1.  Si.  B.  C.  L.  read  KaKeifiev  e^eMovror  avrov  instead  of  ?.eyovToi  .  .  .  avTovi, 
L.  S.  V.  A.  Several  Mnn.,  a-<)OTnfii!^eiv  instead  of  unonTounTi^giv.  Ver.  54.  ii.  X. 
omit  01)701' after  eif'5pn»;i'T£-5.  15  Mjj.  Syr.  It.  read  C^^roj^ire?  instead  of  «ai  ^j^rovireS  ; 
K.  B.  L.  omit  these  words.     !!i.  B.  L.  omit  i'«  KnTrjyoi)i)aijr!iv  nvrav. 

I  Ver.  1.  Instead  of  iv  oii  .  .  .  o|;/.(jv,  D/  lir'"''ique^  Vg.,  tto/./Iwi'  ch  o;^;/wy  awneit 
uxovruv  HVK?,u.     Tert.  Vg.  omit  Tipurov. 


338  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKES. 

g^,.2-^g,_"  In  the  mean  time,  when  there  were  gathered  together  an  innumerable  mul 
titude  of  people,  insomuch  that  ihey  tiocJe  one  upon  auolher,  He  began  to  hay  unlo 
His  disciples  first  of  all  :  Beware  ye  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  which  is  hj  poc 
risy.  2.  For  there  is  nothing  covered  that  shall  not  be  revealed  ;  neither  hid,  that 
shall  not  be  known.  3.  Therefore,  whatsoever  ye  have  spoken  in  daikuess  shall 
be  heard  in  the  light ;  and  that  which  ye  have  spoken  in  the  ear  in  closets 
shall  be  proclaimed  upon  the  house-tops."  The  words  ev  ols,  on  which,  establish  a 
close  connection  between  the  following  scene  and  that  which  precedes.  This  gather- 
ing, which  is  formed  as  in  the  previous  scene  (11  :  29),  is  readily  explained  by  the 
general  circumstances— those  of  a  journey.  When  Jesus  had  arrived  at  a  village, 
some  time  was  needed  to  make  the  population  aware  of  it  ;  and  soon  it  flocked  to 
Ilim  en  masse.  "Up^aTo,  He  began,  imparts  a  solemn  character  to  the  words  which 
follow.  Jesus,  after  having  spoken  severely  to  His  adversaries,  now  addresses  the 
little  company  of  His  disciples,  lost  among  that  immense  throng,  in  language  full  of 
boldness.  It  is  the  cry  omcard,  with  the  promise  of  victory.  The  words,  to  the  dis- 
ciples, are  thus  the  key  to  the  discourse  followmg.  The  word  npurov,  before  all,  should 
evidently  be  connected  with  the  verb  which  foUows,  beicare  ye.  Comp.  9  :  61,  10  :  5. 
Meyer  concludes,  from  the  absence  of  the  article  before  vKOKpLOLi,  that  the  leaven  is 
not  hypocrisy  itself,  but  a  style  of  teaching  which  has  the  character  of  hypocrisy. 
This  is  a  very  forced  meaning.  The  absence  of  the  article  i3  very  common  before 
terms  which  denote  virtues  and  vices.  (Winer,  "  Gramra.  des  N.  T.  Sprachidioms," 
§  19,  1.)  Leaven  is  the  emblem  of  every  active  principle,  good  or  bad,  which  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  assimilation.  The  devotion  of  the  Phar.'sees  had  given  a  false 
direction  to  the  whole  of  Israelitish  piety  (vers.  39,  44).  This  warning  may  have 
been  repeated  several  times  (Mark  8  :  13  ;  Matt.  10  :  6). 

The  tie  adversative  of  ver.  2  determines  the  sense  of  the  verse:  "But  all  this 
Pharisaic  hypocrisy  shall  be  unveiled.  The  impure  foundation  of  this  so  vaunted 
holiness  shall  come  fully  to  the  light,  and  then  the  whole  authority  of  those  masters 
of  opinion  shall  crumble  away  ;  but,  in  place  thereof  {dvO'  djv,  ver.  3),  those  whose 
voice  cannot  now  find  a  hearing,  save  within  limited  and  obscure  circles,  shall  become 
the  teachers  of  the  world."  The  Hillels  and  Gamaliels  v.ill  give  place  to  new  teach- 
ers, who  shall  fill  the  world  wilh  their  doctrine,  and  those  masters  shall  be  Peter, 
John,  INIatthew,  here  present !  This  substitution  of  a  new  doctorate  for  the  old  is 
announced  in  like  manner  to  Nicodemus  (John  3  :  10,  11).  Here,  as  there,  the  poeti- 
cal rhythm  of  the  parallelism  indicates  that  elevation  of  feeling  which  arises  from  so 
great  and  transporting  a  thought.  Comp.  the  magnificent  apostrophe  of  St.  Paul,  1 
Cor.  1  :  20  :  "Where  is  the  wise?  Where  is  the  scribe  .  .  .  ?"  By  St.  Paul's 
time  the  substitution  had  been  fully  effected.  Tafislov,  the  larder  (from  riuvcj)  ;  and 
hence  the  locked  chamber,  the  innermost  apartment,  in  opposition  to  the  public 
room.  The  roofs  of  houses  in  the  East  are  terraces,  from  whicli  one  can  speak  with 
those  who  are  in  the  street.  This  is  the  emblem  of  the  greatest  possible  publicity. 
The  mouth  of  the  scribes  shall  be  stopped,  and  the  teaching  of  the  poor  disciples  shall 
be  heard  over  the  whole  universe.  The  apophthegms  of  vers.  2  and  3  may  be  applied 
in  many  ways,  and  Jesus  seems  to  have  repeated  them  often  with  varied  applications. 
Comp.  8  :  17.  In  the  parallel  passage  (Matt.  10  :  27),  the  matter  in  question  is  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  not  that  of  the  apostles  ;  and  this  saying  appears  in  the  form  of  an 
exhortation  addressed  to  the  latter  :  "  What  I  tell  you  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in 
light."     Natural'y  the  maxim  which  precedes  (ver.  2  of  Luke)  should  also  receive  a 


CHAP.   XII.  :4-10.  339 

different  application  in  Maltliew  (vcr.  26) :  "  Everylhiug  that  is  true  must  come  to 
tliu  light,     rublisli,  lhcrt'l\>rc,  withoul  Icar  whalsocver  i  have  tokl  >ou." 

Vers.  4-7.*  rersonal  Security.—"  And  1  say  uulo  you,  mj  Irieuds,  Be  not  afraid 
of  them  that  kill  the  body,  aud  af  er  that  have  uo  more  tuat  they  cau  do.  5.  But  I 
■w  ill  foiewaru  you  whom  ye  shall  fear  ;  fear  Him  whieh,  after  Uc  hath  killed,  hath 
power  to  cast  into  bell  ;  yea,  I  say  uuto  you,  fear  Him.  G.  Are  not  five  sparrows 
sold  for  two  failhiugs  ;  aud  not  one  of  them  is  forgotten  before  God  ?  7.  But  even 
tlic  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered.  Fear  not,  therefore  :  ye  are  of  more 
value  Ihau  many  sparrows."  The  success  of  their  cau^e  is  certain.  But  what  of 
their  ^jetsnual  future?  After  11  :  49  there  was  good  cause  for  some  disquiet  on  this 
point.  Hire  the  heart  of  Jesus  softens  :  the  thought  of  the  lot  which  some  of  them 
will  have  to  undergo  seems  to  render  His  own  more  dear  to  Him.  Hence  the  tender 
form  of  address,  To  you,  my  friends.  Certainly  Luke  did  not  invent  this  word  :  aud 
if  Matthew,  in  whom  it  is  not  found  (10  .28.  et  seq.),  had  used  the  same  document  as 
Luke,  he  would  not  have  omitted  it.  Olshausen  has  taken  up  the  strange  idea,  that 
by  him  who  can  cast  into  hell  we  are  to  understand,  not  God,  but  the  devil,  as  if 
Scripture  taught  us  to  fear  the  devil,  and  not  rather  to  resist  him  to  his  face  (1  Pet. 
5:9;  James  4  :  7).  The  mss.  are  divided  between  the  forms  anoKTErv6vTui>  (Eolico- 
Doric,  according  to  Bleek),  cnvoKvefni^Tuv  (a  corruption  of  the  preceding),  and 
czoKTcivdi'Tuv  (the  regular  form).  The  term  Gehenna  (hell)  properly  signifies  talley  of 
IIinnoni{Q^j-f^  ij,  Josh.  15  :  8,  comp.  18  :  16  ;  2  Kings  23  :  10  ;  Jer.  7  :  31,  etc.).  It 
was  a  fresh  aud  pleasant  valley  to  the  south  of  the  hill  of  Zion,  where  were  found  in 
early  times  the  king's  gardens.  But  as  it  was  there  that  the  worship  of  Moloch  was 
celebrateil  under  the  idolatrous  kings,  Josiah  converted  it  into  a  place  for  sewage. 
The  valle}'  thus  became  the  type,  and  its  name  the  designation,  of  hell.  This  saying 
of  Jesus  distinguishes  soul  from  body  as  emphatically  as  modern  spiritualism  can  do. 
What  are  we  to  think  of  M.  Renan,  who  dares  to  assert  that  Jesus  did  not  know  the 
exact  distinction  between  those  two  eleiueuts  of  our  being  ! 

Jesus  dues  not  promise  His  disciples  that  their  life  shall  always  be  safe.  But  if 
they  perish,  it  will  not  be  without  the  consent  of  an  all-powerful  Being,  who  is  called 
their  Father.  The  sayings  whieh  follow  expre.ss  by  the  most  forcible  emblems  the 
idea  of  a  providence  which  extends  to  the  smallest  details  of  human  life.  To  make  a 
more  appreciable  sum,  Luke  speaks  of  five  birds  of  the  value  of  about  two  farthings, 
^lallhew,  who  .speaks  of  two  birds  only,  gives  their  value  at  one  farthing  ;  that  is,  a 
little  dearer.  Did  five  cost  proportionally  a  little  less  than  two?  Can  we  imagine 
one  of  the  two  evangelists  amusing  himself  by  making  such  changes  in  the  text  of 
the  other,  or  in  that  of  a  common  dociuncnt  I  The  expression  before  God  is  Hebrais- 
tic ;  it  means  that  there  is  not  one  of  those  small  creatures  whi(;h  is  not  individually 
present  to  the  view  of  divine  omniscience.  The  knowledge  of  God  extends  nut  only 
to  our  persons,  but  even  to  the  most  insignificant  parts  of  our  being — to  those  140,- 
000  hairs  of  which  we  lose  some  every  day  without  paying  the  least  attention.  No 
fear,  then  ;  ye  shall  not  fall  without  God's  consent ;  and  if  He  consent,  it  is  because 
it  will  be  for  His  child's  good. 

Vers.  8-10.  f  The  Recompense  of  faithful  Disciples,  contrasted  with  the  PunisJiment 

*  Ver.  4.  5  !Mjj.  10  Mim.  read  neptaanv  instead  of  Trepinaorepov.  Ver.  7.  B.  L.  R. 
It*'''!,  emit  oui/  after /i7?.  6  Mjj.  60  Mnu.  Vg.  add  v/xeii  after  (^laaepere  (taken  from 
Malthew). 

t  Ver.  8.  it.  D.  read  on  after  vuid.  !Marrion  omitted  tdv  ayye/~uv.  Ver.  9.  A.  D. 
K.  Q.  U.  20  Mini.,  eu-oon  iv  instead  of  the  first  ei-u-lov  (according  to  Malthew). 


340  COMMENTARY    OIST    ST.  LUKE. 

of  the  Cowardlji,  and  with  thai  of  Adversaries. — "  Also  1  say  unto  you,  "Whosoever  shall 
confess  me  before  men,  liim  shall  the  Son  of  man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
God.  9.  But  he  that  denieth  me  before  men,  shall  be  denied  before  the  angels  of 
God.  10.  And  whosoever  shall  speak  a  woid  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  for- 
given him  ;  but  unto  him  that  blasphemeth  agamst  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be 
forgiven."  The  profession  of  the  gospel  may  undoubtedly  cost  the  disciples  dear  ; 
bul  if  they  persevere,  it  assures  them  of  a  magnificent  recompense.  Jesus,  when  glo- 
ritied,  will  requite  them  by  declaring  them  His  before  the  heavenly  throng,  for  what 
they  did  for  Him  by  acknowledging  Him  their  Lord  below  at  the  lime  of  His  hu- 
miliation. The  gnostic  Heracleou  remarked  the  force  of  the  prep,  ev  with  o/^oAoydv. 
It  e.xpresscs  the  rest  of  faith  in  Him  who  is  confessed.  Ver.  9  guards  the  disciples 
against  the  danger  of  denial.  This  warning  was  by  no  means  out  of  place  at  the 
time  when  they  were  surrounded  by  furious  enemies.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Jesus 
does  not  say  lie  iciU  deny  the  renegade,  as  He  said  that  He  woukl  confess  the  confess- 
or. The  verb  is  here  in  the  passive,  as  if  to  show  that  this  rejection  will  be  a  self- 
consummated  act. 

Ver.  10  glances  at  a  danger  more  dreadful  still  than  that  of  being  rejected  as  a 
timid  disciple.  This  punisimient  may  have  an  end.  But  the  sin  of  which  ver.  10 
speaks  is  forever  unpardonable.  This  tenible  threat  naturally  applies  to  the  sin  of 
the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  to  which  His  thought  recurs  in  closing.  They  sin,  not 
through  timidity,  but  through  active  malice.  By  the  expression  Uasiihcme  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  Jesus  alludes  to  the  accusation  which  had  given  rise  to  this  whole  con- 
flict (11  :  15),  and  by  which  the  woiks  of  that  divine  agent  in  the  hearts  of  men 
(conip.  Matt.  12  :  28,  "  If  least  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  Ood")  had  been  ascribed 
lo  the  spirit  of  darkness.  That  was  knowingly  and  deliberately  to  insult  the  holi- 
ness of  the  principle  from  which  all  good  in  human  life  proceeds.  To  show  the 
greatness  of  tliis  crime  of  high  treason,  Jesus  compares  it  with  an  outrage  committed 
against  His  own  person.  He  calls  the  latter  a  simple  icord  (/.njoi'),  an  imprudent 
word,  not  a  blasphemy.  To  utter  a  word  against  the  poor  and  humble  Son  of  man  is 
a  sin  which  does  not  necessarily  proceed  from  malice.  Might  it  not  be  the  position 
of  a  sincerely  pious  Jew,  who  was  still  ruled  by  prejudices  with  which  he  had  been 
imbued  by  his  pharisaic  education,  to  regard  Jesus  not  as  the  expected  Messiah,  but 
as  an  enthusiast,  a  visionary,  or  even  an  impostor  ?  Such  a  sin  resembles  that  of  the 
woman  who  devovitly  brought  her  contribution  to  the  pile  of  Huss,  and  at  the  sight 
of  whom  the  martyr  exclaimed,  Sancta  simpUcitas.  Jesus  is  ready  to  pardon  in  this 
world  or  in  the  next  every  indignity  offered  merely  to  His  person  ;  but  an  insult 
offered  to  goodness  as  such,  and  to  its  living  principle  in  the  heart  of  humanilJ^  the 
Iluly  Spirit,  the  impious  audacity  of  putting  the  holiness  of  His  works  to  the  ac- 
count of  the  spirit  of  evil — that  is  what  He  calls  blasplteming  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
what  He  declares  unpardonable.  The  history  of  Israel  has  fully  proved  the  truth  of 
this  threatening.  This  people  perished  not  for  having  nailed  .Jesus  Christ  to  the 
cross.  t)therwise  Good  Friday  would  have  been  the  day  of  their  judgment,  and  God 
would  not  have  continued  to  offer  them  for  forty  years  the  pardon  of  their  crime.  It 
was  its  rejection  of  the  apostolic  preaching,  its  obstinate  resistance  to  the  Spirit  of 
Pentecost,  which  fillei  up  the  measure  of  Jerusalem's  sin.  And  it  is  with  individ- 
uals as  with  that  nation.  The  sin  which  is  forever  unpardonable,  is  not  the  rejection 
of  the  truth,  in  consequence  of  a  misunderstanding,  such  as  that  of  so  many  unbe- 
lievers who  confound  the  gospel  with  this  or  that  false  form,  which  is  nothing  better 


CHAT.  XII.  :  11,  12.  341 

than  its  caricature.  It  is  hatred  of  holiness  as  such — a  hatred  which  leads  men  to 
in.ike  iLu  gus|><  1  a  woik  of  prule  or  fiaud,  and  lo  asciibu  il  to  llie  s[)iiil  of  evil.  This 
is  not  Id  tiju  agHiu^l  Jesus  personally;  it  is  to  iu&ult  the  divine  piiueiiije  which  ac- 
tiialed  liiui.     li  IS  haired  of  gonduets  itself  in  its  supreme  maniftslalion. 

Tlie  luim  iu  whicli  Mallhew  (1'^  :  ol,  'S'-l)  has  preserved  this  \vaiuin,«r  dilTers  ron- 
sideiably  from  thai  of  Luke  ;  and  that  of  3Iark  (ii  :  2S,  2U)  dillers  in  ils  turn  from 
that  of  .Matthew.  Il  is  wholly  iucuuceivable,  that  iu  a  statemtut  uf  such  gravit}'  the 
evangelists  arbitrarily  introduced  changes  into  a  written  text  which  tliey  had  before 
their  eyes.  Ou  the  contrary,  we  can  easily  understand  how  this  saying,  wliile  circu- 
lating in  the  churches  iu  the  shape  of  oral  tradition,  assumed  somewhat  difTerent 
forms.  As  to  the  place  assigned  to  this  declaration  by  the  synoptics,  that  which  ]Mat- 
thew  and  .Maik  give,  immediately  after  the  accusation  which  called  it  forth,  appears 
at  Ihst  sight  preferable.  Iseverlheless,  the  connection  which  it  has  in  Luke's  context 
wiih  what  precedes  and  what  follows,  is  not  difficult  to  apprehend.  There  is  at  once 
a  gradation  iu  respect  of  the  sin  of  weakness  mentioned  ver.  9,  and  a  contrast  to  the 
promise  of  vers.  11  and  12,  where  this  Holy  Spirit,  the  subject  of  blasphemy  on  the 
part  of  the  Phaiisees,  is  presented  as  the  powerful  support  of  the  persecuted  disciples. 
There  is  thus  room  for  doiibt. 

Vers.  11  and  12.*  T/ie  Aid. — "  When  they  bring  j'ou  unto  the  synagogues, 
and  before  magistrates  and  powers,  take  ye  no  thought  how  or  what  thing 
ye  shall  answer,  or  what  ye  shall  say  :  12.  For  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you 
in  the  same  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say."  Jesus  seems  to  take  pleasure  iu 
enumerating  all  llie  different  kinds  of  powers  whose  hostility  they  shall  have 
to  feel,  ^vvayuyal,  the  Jewish  tribunals,  having  a  leligious  character  ;  «w«t. 
Gentile  authorities,  r)urely  civil,  from  provincial  prefects  up  to  the  emperor ; 
i^ovcini,  any  power  whatsoever.  But  let  them  not  make  preparation  to  plead  ! 
Their  answer  will  be  sujiplied  to  them  on  the  spot,  both  as  to  ils  form  (ttw?, 
how)  and  substance  (r/,  ich(it).  And  their  part  will  not  be  confined  to  defending 
themselves  ;  they  will  take  the  ofifensive  ;  they  will  bear  testimony  (tl  elnr/re,  uhat  ye 
slinllmy).  In  this  respect,  also,  every  thins:  shall  be  given  them.  Witness  Peter  and 
Stephen  before  the  Sanhedrim,  St.  Paul  before  Felix  and  Festus  ;  they  do  not  merely 
defend  their  persf<n  ;  they  preach  the  gospel.  Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  will  so  act  in 
them,  that  they  shall  only  have  to  yield  themselves  to  Him  as  His  mouthpiece.  The 
parallel  passage  occurs  in  Matthew  in  the  instructions  given  to  the  Twelve  (10  :  19, 
20).  The  form  is  different  enoujrh  to  prove  that  the  two  compihitions  are  not  founded 
on  the  same  text.  Cnmp.  also  a  similar  thought  (John  15  :  26,  27).  This  saying  at- 
tests the  reality  o"f  the  psychological  phenomenon  of  inspiration.  Jesus  asseits  that 
the  spirit  of  God  can  so  communicate  with  the  spirit  of  man,  that  the  latter  shall  be 
only  the  organ  of  the  former. 

Holizmann  sees  in  all  those  sayings,  12  :  1-12,  only  a  combination  of  materials 
arbitiarily  connected  by  Luke,  and  placed  here  in  a  fictitious  framework.  A  dis- 
(;ourse  specially  addressed  to  tiie  disciples  seems  to  him  out  of  place  in  the  midst  of 
this  crowd  (p.  94).  Yet  he  cannot  lielp  making  an  exception  of  vers.  l-:3.  which 
may  be  regarded  as  snitabl}'  spoken  before  a  large  multitude.  But  if  we  admit  ever 
so  little  the  historical  truth  of  the  striking  words,  1  my  uiito  you,  you  lay  friends  (ver. 

*  Ver.  11.  !*.  B.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  It"'"!.  Vg. ,  ein<f)Ef)u)nii'  instead  of  Trpon^Fpuniv. 
D.  It"''"'.,  6F_p(jniv.  i*.  D.  R.  some  ."Mnn..  ft5  instead  of  e:n.  ^.  B.  L.  Q.  R.  X.  some 
Mnn.,  fiept/xi'ijaTjTe  instead  oi  jupi^yarE.     D.  Syr.  IiP'«riqn«,  omit  n  tl. 


342  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

4),  we  must  acknowledge  tliat  they  serve  to  dislingnish  the  disciples  from  other  per- 
sons present,  and  who  are  not  of  the  same  miiKL  The  promise  addressed  to  faithful 
confessors  (ver.  9)  also  receives  from  the  hustile  sunoundiu^s  a  quite  pecuUar  appro- 
priateness. The  threat  of  ver.  10  supposes  llie  presence  of  adveisaries  who  have  ca- 
lumniated Jesus.  In  short,  the  announcement  of  persecutions,  auil  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit's  aid,  vers.  11,  12,  find  a  natural  explanation  it,  at  the  very  moment, 
the  disciples  were  in  a  perilous  situation.  All  the  elements  of  this  discourse  are  thus 
in  perfect  keepint^  with  the  historical  frame  in  which  it  is  set  hy  Luke.  And  this 
fiame  is  only  an  invention  of  the  evaugelist  ! 

9.  The  Position  of  Man  and  of  the  Believer  in  relation  to  this  World's  Goods : 
12  :  13-59.— The  occasion  of  this  new  discourse  is  supplied  by  an  unexpected  event, 
and  without  any  relation  to  what  had  just  happened.  This  i>iece  embraces  :  \st.  A 
historical  introduction  (vers.  13,  14) ;  2d.  A  discourse  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  mul- 
titude on  the  value  of  earthly  goods  to  man  in  general  (vers.  15-21)  ;  M.  A  discourse, 
which  He  addresses  specially  to  the  disciples,  on  the  position  which  their  new  faith 
gives  them  in  respect  of  those  goods  (vers.  32-4U)  ;  Ath.  A  still  more  special  applica- 
tion of  the  same  truth  to  the  apostles  (vers.  41-53)  ;  btk.  In  closing,  Jesus  returns  to 
the  people,  and  gives  them  a  last  warning,  based  on  the  threatening  character  of  pres- 
ent circumstances  (vers.  54-59). 

\st.  The  Occasion :  vers.  13  and  14.*— A  man  in  the  crowd  profits  by  a  moment  of 
silence  to  submit  a  matter  to  Jesus  which  lies  heavily  on  his  heart,  and  which  proba- 
bly brought  him  to  the  Lord's  presence.  According  to  the  civil  law  of  the  Jews,  the 
eldest  brother  received  a  double  portion  of  the  inheritance,  burdened  with  the  obliga- 
tion of  supporting  his  mother  and  unmarried  sisters.  As  Ic^  the  younger  members,  it 
would  appear  from  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  that  the  single  share  of  the  prop- 
erty which  accrued  to  them  was  sometimes  paid  in  money.  This  man  was  perhaps 
one  of  those  younger  members,  who  was  not  satisfied  with  the  sum  allotted  to  him, 
or  who,  after  having  spent  it,  still  claimed,  under  some  pretext  or  other,  a  part  of  the 
patrimony.  As  on  other  similar  occasions  (the  woman  taken  in  adultery),  Jesus  abso- 
lutely refuses  to  go  out  of  His  purely  spiritual  domain,  or  to  do  anything  which 
might  give  Him  the  appearance  of  wishing  to  put  Himself  in  the  place  of  the  powers 
that  be.  The  answer  to  the  rl?,  loho?  is  this  :  neither  God  nor  men.  The  difference 
between  the  judge  and  the  tiEpLanji,  him  who  divides,  is  that  the  first  decides  the 
point  of  law,  and  the  second  sees  the  sentence  executed.  The  object  of  Jesus  in  this 
journey  being  to  take  advantage  of  all  the  providential  circumstances  which  could 
not  fail  to  arise,  in  order  to  instruct  the  people  and  His  disciples,  He  immediately 
uses  this  to  bring  before  the  different  classes  of  His  hearers  those  solemn  truths  which 
are  called  forth  in  His  mind  by  the  unexpected  event. 

Holtzmann  is  obliged  to  acknowledge  the  reality  of  the  fact  mentioned  in  the  in- 
troduction. He  therefore  alleges  that  in  this  special  case  the  common  source  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  contained  a  historical  preface,  and  that  the  latter  has  preserved  it  to 
us,  such  as  it  was.  We  accept  for  Luke  the  homage  rendered  iu  this  case  to  his 
fidelity.  But,  1st.  With  what  right  can  it  be  pretended  that  we  have  here  something 
exceptional?  2d.  How  can  it  be  alleged  that  the  occasion  of  the  following  discourse 
was  expressly  indicated  in  the  Logia,  and  that,  nevertheless,  in  the  face  of  this  pre- 
cise tlatum,  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  allowed  himself  to  distribute  the  discnurse 
as  follows:  two  fragments  (vers.  22-31,  and  33.  34)  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Moimt 
(Matt.  6  :  25-33,  19-21)  ;  another  fragment  (vers.  51-53)  in  the  installation  discourse 

*  Ver.  14  !!*.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  read  npn^v  instead  of  diKaaTjjv  (perhaps  follow- 
ing Acts  7  :  27,  35,  Tischendorf). 


CHAP.   XII.  :  i;3-21.  343 

to  tlio  Twelve  (^Fatt.  10  :  o-l-SG)  ;  finall}'.  various  passajres  in  the  great  eschutolngical 
(lisonurse  (Matt.  '2[  and  2"))  ?  Weizsiicker  iVels  the  inipossiliility  ot'  siicli  a  procedure. 
AccortUug  to  hiui,  iMatthew  has  itie.-erved  to  us  the  foiiu  of  the  discourse  exactly  as 
it  appeared  iu  the  Logia.  But  vvliat  dues  Luke  in  Ids  turn  do?  Drawing  fiom  tlujse 
great  discourses  of  liie  Logia  tlie  niateiiais  winch  suit  him,  he  forms  a  new  one. 
purely  fanciful,  at  the  head  of  widch  lie  sets  as  tlie  origin  a  historical  anecdote  of  his 
own  invention  !  In  what  respect  is  tins  procedure  better  than  tiiat  whicii  Ilollzmatin 
ascril)es  to  iMatthew  V  touch  are  llie  psychological  monstrosities  in  opposite  diieciions 
to  wliich  uieu  are  reduced  by  the  hypjlhesis  of  a  commuu  document. 

M.  To  the  People:  vers.  lo-21.*  The  Jiich  Fool.—TlpoS  ai-ovs  ("He  said  unto 
them"),  ver.  15,  stands  in  opposition  to  Ilin  disciples,  ver.  22.  This  slight  detail  cr<n- 
tinns  the  exactness  of  Luke,  for  faith  is  nowhere  supposed  iu  those  to  ■whom  the 
Avarning,  veis.  15-21.  is  addressed.  The  two  imperatives  take  heed  antl  beicare  might 
be  regarded  as  expressing  only  cue  idea  •  "  Have  your  eyes  fully  open  to  this  enemy, 
tivarice  ;"  but  they  may  be  translated  thus  :  "  Take  heed  [to  this  man]  and  beware." 
Jesus  would  set  him  as  an  example  before  the  assembled  people.  The  Greek  term, 
which  we  translate  by  covetomncss,  denotes  the  desire  of  having,  much  more  than 
that  of  ket}ping  what  we  have.  But  the  seciond  is  included  in  the  first.  Both  rest  on 
a  supeistitious  confidence  in  worldly  goods,  which  are  instinctively  identified  with 
happiness.  But  to  enjoy  monty  there  is  a  condition,  viz.,  life,  and  this  condition  is 
not  guaranteed  by  money.  Uspiantvev,  tlie  surplus  of  what  one  has  beyond  vvhat  he 
needs.  The  prep,  kv  may  be  paraphrased  by  though  or  because:  "  Though  he  has  or 
because  he  has  superabundance,  he  has  not  for  all  that  assurance  of  life."  The  two 
senses  come  nearly  to  the  same.  We  should  probably  read  nda-oc,  all  covetousness, 
instead  of  r/};,  covetousness  in  general:  the  desire  of  having  in  every  shap«. 

Ver.  IG.  The  term  parable  may  signify  an  example  as  well  as  an  image  ;  when 
the  example  is  fictitious  it  is  invented  as  an  image  of  the  abstract  truth.  This  lich 
farmer  has  a  superabundance  of  goods  sufficient  for  years  ;  but  all  in  vain,  his  super- 
fluity cannot  guarantee  his  life  even  till  to-morrow.  He  speaks  to  his  soul  (;i'£j), 
the  seat  of  his  affections,  as  if  it  belonged  to  him  ("  my  soul  ;"  comp.  the  four  ^lov, 
vers.  17  and  18) ;  and  yet  he  is  about  to  learn  that  this  soul  itself  is  only  lent  him. 
The  words  :  "  God  said  unto  him,"  express  more  than  a  decree  ;  they  imply  a  warn- 
ing whicli  he  hears  inwardly  before  dying.  The  subject  of  aTrairovaiv  (the  present 
designates  (he  immediate  future)  is  neither  murderers  nor  angels  ;  it  is  the  indefinite 
pron.  on,  they,  according  to  a  very  common  Aramaic  form  ;  comp.  ver.  48  and  14  :  35 
This  night  is  the  antithesis  of  many  years,  as  required  is  that  of  the  expression,  "  my 
soul." 

Ver.  21.  Application  of  the  Parable.  The  phrase  laying  vp  treasure  for  Jnmselfi^ 
sufficiently  explained  by  ver.  19.  Eich  tmcard  God  might  signify,  rich  in  spiritual 
goods.  But  the  prep.  «'?,  in  relation  to,  is  unfavorable  to  this  meaning.  It  is  belter 
to  take  it  in  the  sense  of  laying  up  a  treasure  iu  the  presence  of  God,  iu  the  sense  of 
the  saying,  lie  vho  gireth  to  the  poor  lendcth  to  the  Lord.  To  become  God's  creditor, 
is  to  have  a  treasure  in  God  ;  comp.  vers.  SB,  34. 

M.  To  the  Disciples  :  vers.  22-40.— Disengagement  from  earthly  goods.     The  fol- 

*  Ver.  l.*).  13  Mjj.  40  IVInn.  Svr.  Tf.  Vg.,  -rzanrir  instead  of  rrir,  which  the  T.  R. 
reads  with  !)  Byz.  anil  the  ISInn.  "7  IMjj.  (Bvz.)  GO  Mnn.,  avru  instead  of  uvtov  after 
C'.'T?.  The  Mss!  are  divided  between  avTnv(V.  R.)  and  avTu  after  v-pcnpxovTuv.  Ver. 
18.  ».  D.  some  :Mnn.  Syr'■"^  Itr'^W"*,  omit  aai  ra  aynOa  fiov.  Ver.  20.  13  Mjj.  (Alex.) 
several  Mnn.,  a<ppuv  instead  of  afpov. 


34i  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

lowiug  exhortations  suppose  faith.  The  believer  should  renounce  the  pursuit  of 
earthly  goods  :  1.  From  a  feeling  of  entire  contidence  as  to  this  life  in  his  heavenly- 
Father  (vers.  32-a4)  ;  2.  From  his  preoccupation  with  spiiitual  goods,  after  which 
exclusively  he  aspires,  and  because  he  is  awaiting  the  return  of  the  Master  to  whom 
he  has  given  himself  (vers.  35-40). 

Vers.  22-24*  Disengagement  as  resulting  from  confidence  in  the  omnipotence 
and  fatherly  goodness  of  God.  "  And  He  said  unto  His  disciples.  Therefore  I  say 
unto  you,  Take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat  ;  neither  for  the  body, 
what  ye  shall  put  on.  23.  The  life  is  more  than  meat,  and  the  body  is  more  than  rai- 
ment. 24.  Consider  the  ravens  :  for  they  neither  sow  nor  reap  ;  which  neither  have 
storehouse  nor  barn  ;  and  God  feedeth  them  :  how  much  more  are  j'e  better  than  the 
fowls?"  The  words  iinto  His  Disciples,  ver.  22,  are  the  key  of  this  discourse  ;  it  is 
only  to  believers  that  Jesus  can  speak  as  He  proceeds  to  do.  Not  only  should  the 
believer  not  aim  at  possessing  superabundance,  he  should  not  even  disquiet  himself 
about  the  necessaries  of  life.  Of  the  family  of  God  (ver.  34),  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
may  reckon  on  the  tender  care  of  this  heavenly  Master  in  whose  service  they  are 
working,  and  that  in  respect  of  food  as  well  as  clothing.  TJierefoi'e:  because  this 
false  confidence  in  riches  is  folly.  Ver.  23  formally  states  the  precept  ;  ver.  23  gives 
its  logical  i)roof  ;  ver.  24  illustrates  it  by  an  example  taken  from  nature.  The  logical 
proof  rests  on  an  argument  d  fortiori :  He  who  gave  the  more  (the  life,  the  body), 
will  yet  more  certainly  give  the  less  (the  nourishment  of  the  life,  the  clothing  of  the 
body).  In  the  example  borrowed  from  nature,  it  is  important  to  mark  how  all  the 
figures  employed — sowing,  reaping,  storehouse,  barn — are  connected  with  the  parable 
of  the  foolish  rich  man.  All  those  labors,  all  those  provisions,  in  the  midst  of  which 
the  rich  man  died,  the  ravens  know  nothing  of  them  ;  and  yet  they  live  !  The  will 
of  God  is  thus  a  surer  guarantee  of  existence  than  the  possession  of  superabundance. 
In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  Matthew  has  those  sayings,  they  occur  apart 
from  any  connection  with  the  parable  of  the  foolish  rich  man,  of  whom  there  is  no 
mention  whatever.  Again,  a  flower  torn  from  its  stalk  (see  on  Luke  11  :  5-10).  It  is 
certainly  not  Luke  who  has  cleverly  imagined  the  striking  connection  bet  veen  this 
example  and  the  preceding  parable.  It  must  therefore  have  existed  in  his  sources. 
But  if  those  sources  were  the  same  as  those  of  Matthew,  the  latter  must  then  have  had 
such  gross  unskilfulness  as  to  break  a  connection  like  this  !  In  the  last  words,  the 
adverb  {la/Ckov,  joined  to  6ia(pepEiv,  which  by  itself  signifies  to  be  better,  is  a  pleonasm 
having  the  meaning  :  to  surpass  in  the  highest  degree.  In  contrast  with  divine 
power,  Jesirs  sets  human  powerlessness,  as  proved  by  the  sudden  death  of  the  rich 
man,  which  completes  the  proof  of  the  folly  of  earthly  cares. 

Vers.  25-28.f  "  Which  of  you,  with  taking  thought,  can  add  to  his  stature  one 
cubit  ?  26.  If  ye  then  be  not  able  to  do  that  thing  which  is  least,  why  take  ye 
thought  for  the  rest  ?  37.  Consider  the  lilies  how  they  grow  :  they  toil  not,  they 
spin  not ;  and  yet  I  say  unto  you,  that  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  M-as  not  arrayed  like 
one  of  these.  28.  If  then  God  so  clothe  the  grass,  which  is  to-day  in  the  field,  and  to 
morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven  ;  how  much  more  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith?"     Ver.  25 

*  Ver.  22.  ».  A.  B.  D.  L.  Q.  10  Mnn.  Itp'«"-iq°«,  omit  v/iuv  after  ^jvxn.  Ver.  23. 
7  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  Syr.  Ifi^i.  add  yap  after  n. 

t  Ver.  25.  N\  JB.  D.  If''^.  omit  eva  after  tttixvv.  Ver.  26.  !*.  B.  L.  Q.  T.  some 
Mnn..  ov(5e  instead  of  nvre.  Ver.  27.  D.  Syr''"^  has  Tcjr  owe  vTjOei  nvre  vcpaivei  instead 
of  TTuS  av^avei  ov  noma  ov<)e  vrjOei.     Ver.  28.   B.  D.  L.  T.,  afi^ui^EL  instead  of  aufievvvct. 


CHAi'.   XII.  :  2i  31.  345 

expresses  in  a  general  way  the  iilea  of  the  iuefTuacy  of  liumnn  cares.  Mepifivuv,  par- 
ticiplu  present  :  by  means  of  (lisc|uieliuy  one's  self.  'll'/uKia  might  refer  to  age  ;  we 
should  then  require  to  tal^e  ni'/xv{,  cubit,  in  atigurative  sense  (Ps.  39:6).  But  the 
word  seems  to  nn  to  be  connected  with  what  is  said  about  the  growth  of  plants, 
which  is  sunutimes  so  rapid  ;  it  is  therefore  more  natural  to  give  y'/uKia  its  ordinary 
9i."use  of  stature.  Ut/xvi,  cubit,  thus  preserves  its  literal  meaning.  Plants  which  give 
themselves  no  care,  yet  make  cnoimous  increase,  while  ye  by  your  anxieties  do  not 
hi  the  least  hasten  your  growth.  Vers.  25,  26  correspond  to  ver.  23.  Your  anxieties 
will  not  procure  for  j'ou  an  increas.*  of  stature  ;  how  much  less  advantages  of  higher 
value!  The  example  which  follows,  taken  from  nature  (ver.  27).  corresponds  with 
that  of  ver.  24.  After  reading  the  delicious  piece  of  M.  F.  Bovet  ("  Voyage  en 
Terre-Sainte,"  p.  383),  it  is  hard  to  give  up  the  idea  that  b}'  the  lili/  of  the  fields  we  are 
lo  unilerstand  the  beautiful  red  anemone  {anemone  coronaria)  with  which  the  mead- 
ows throughout  all  Palestine  are  enamelled.  Yet  Jesus  may  possibly  mean  either  the 
magnifircnt  white  lily  {liUum  candidum),  or  the  splendid  red  lily  {lilium  rubrum), 
which  are  found,  though  more  raiely,  in  that  country  (Winer,  Lexicon,  ad  h.  v.). 
From  want  of  wood,  ovens  in  the  East  are  fed  with  herbs. 

Vers.  29-34.*  The  Application.—"  And  seek  not  ye  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye 
shall  drink,  neither  be  ye  of  doubtful  mind  30.  For  all  these  things  do  the  nations 
of  the  world  seek  after  :  and  your  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need  of  these  things. 
31.  But  rather  .seek  ye  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto 
you.  32.  Fear  not,  little  flock  ;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the 
kingdom.  33.  Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms  ;  provide  yourselves  bags  which  wax 
not  old,  a  treasure  in  the  heavens  that  fuileth  not,  where  no  thief  approacheth, 
neither  moth  corruptcth.  34.  For  where  j^our  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be 
also."  With  the  cares  which  He  leaves  to  the  men  of  this  world  (vers.  29,  3U)  Jesus 
contrasts  the  care  which  lie  recommends  to  His  own  (vers.  31-34).f  Kai  (ver.  29) : 
and  consequently.  'T//fic,  ye,  might  contrast  men  with  the  lower  creatures  cited  as 
examples,  the  ravens,  the  lilies.  But  according  to  ver.  30,  this  pronoun  rather  serves 
to  distinguish  the  discii)les  from  men  who  have  no  faith,  from  the  nations  of  this 
world.  Jesus  thus  designates  not  only  the  heathen— in  that  case  He  would  have  said 
pimply  the  nations — but  also  the  .Jews,  who,  by  refusing  to  enter  into  the /3aatAaa, 
condemn  themselves  to  become  a  people  of  this  world  like  the  rest,  and  remain  out- 
ride of  the  true  people  of  God,  U)  whom  Jesus  is  here  speaking  (f/te  little  flock,  ver.  32). 

TiTiijv  (ver.  31)  :  "  All  this  false  seeking  swept  away,  there  remains  only  one  which 
IS  worthy  of  you."  "  The  kingdom  of  God,"  as  always  :  that  state,  first  internal, 
tnen  social,  in  which  the  human  will  is  nothing  but  the  free  agent  of  the  divine  will. 
Ad  t'^ese  things,  to  wit,  food  and  clothing,  shall  be  given  over  and  above  the  kingdom 
which  ye  seek  exclusively,  as  earthly  blessings  were  given  to  the  j'oung  Solomon 
over  and  above  the  wisdom  which  alone  he  had  asked.  Yial  -.  and  on  this  single  con- 
dition. Udvra  was  easily  omitted  after  ravra  by  a  mistake  of  sight  (confusion  of  the 
two  ra).  Bleek  acknowle  Iges  that  this  passage  is  more  suitably  put  in  Luke  than  by 
Matthew  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  the  entire  piece  on  confidence  is  only 

*  Ver.  29.  The  mr.s.  are  divided  between  v  ri  (T.  R.)  and  Km  n  (Alex.).  Ver.  31. 
».  B.  D.  L.  lt"'"i..  uvTuv  instead  of  tov  Qaw  (which  is  perhaps  taken  from  Malttiew). 
lU  -Mjj.  30  Mnn.  Syr"'.  It"'"!,  omit  i7avra 

f  keim,  vol.  ii.  p.  27. 


o4iG  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

very  indirectly  connected  with  the  charge  of  covetousness  addressed  to  the  Phari- 
sees. 

The  expression  little  flock,  ver,  32,  corresponds  with  the  critical  position  of  the 
small  group  of  disciples  in  the  midst  of  undecided  or  hostile  myriads,  ver.  1  ;  it  re- 
calls the  you,  my  friends,  ver.  4.  Jesus  here  gives  consolation  to  the  believer  for 
times  when  the  interests  of  the  kingdom  of  God  place  him  in  a  position  uf  earthly 
privation  (Gess).  The  a  fortiori  argument  of  ver.  23  is  here,  ver.  32,  reproduced  in  a 
higlier  sphere  :  "  Will  not  He  who  has  provided  with  so  much  love  for  your  eternal 
well-being  provide  more  certainly  still  for  your  poor  earthly  maintenance  V"  What 
faithful  servant  would  have  to  disquiet  himself  about  his  food  in  the  house  of  the 
master  for  wbom  he  works  day  and  night  ?  And  when  this  master  is  a  Father  !  It 
was  from  experience  that  Jesus  spoke  in  such  a  style. 

From  the  duty  of  being  unconcerned  about  the  acquisition  of  riches,  Jesus  passes, 
ver,  33,  to  that  of  their  wise  employment  when  they  are  possessed.  This  prece[)t 
constitutes,  according  to  De  Wette,  the  great  heresy  of  Luke,  or,  according  to  Keim, 
that  of  his  Ebionite  document — salvation  by  the  meritorious  virtue  of  voluntary  pov- 
erty and  almsgiving.  But  let  us  lirst  remark  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  believers, 
who  as  such  already  possess  the  kingdom  (ver.  32),  and  do  not  require  to  merit  it. 
Then,  when  Jesus  says  sell,  give  .  .  .  is  it  a  commandment  ?  Is  it  not  the  sense 
rather  :  "  Have  uf)  fear  ;  only  do  so  !  If  you  do,  j^ou  will  find  it  again."  Finally, 
for  a  member  of  the  society  of  believers  at  this  period,  was  not  the  administration  of 
earlhly  property  a  really  difficult  thing  ?  Was  not  every  disciple  more  or  less  in  the 
position  of  Jesus  Himself,  who,  having  once  begun  His  ministr}^  bad  required  to 
break  off  His  trade  as  a  carpenter  ?  The  giving  away  of  earthly  goods  is  here  pre- 
sented, first  as  a  means  of  personal  emtincipation,  tuat  the  giver  might  be  able  to  ac- 
company Jesus,  and  become  one  of  the  instruments  of  His  work  ;  then  as  a  gladsome 
liberalitj'  proceeding  from  love,  and  fitted  to  enrich  our  heaven  eternally.  In  all  this 
there  is  nothing  peculiar  to  Luke,  nor  to  his  alleged  Ebionite  document,  Comp.  in 
respect  of  the  first  aspect,  the  historj^  of  the  rich  young  man  (in  the  three  Syn.)  ;  and, 
in  respect  to  the  second,  the  word  of  Jesus  \n  Matthew  :  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  hove  done 
it  unto  one  of  the  least  ...  ye  have  done  it  unto  me,"  and  the  whole  of  the 
judgment  scene  (Matt.  25  :  31-46). 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  kingdom  of  God  at  this  period  was  identified 
with  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  the  society  of  disciples  who  accompanied  Him. 
To  follow  Jesus  (literally)  in  His  peregrinations  was  the  only  way  of  possessing  this 
treasure,  and  of  becoming  fit  to  spread  it  in  consequence.  Then,  as  we  have  seen,  it 
was  an  army  not  merely  of  believers,  but  of  evangelists,  that  Jesus  was  now  laboring 
to  form.  If  they  had  remained  attached  to  the  soil  of  their  earthly  property,  they 
would  have  been  inciipable  of  following  and  serving  Him  without  looking  backward 
(9  :  02).  The  essential  character  of  such  a  precept  alone  is  permanent.  The  form  in 
which  .Jesus  presented  it  arose  from  the  present  condition  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  mode  of  fulfilling  it  varies.  There  are  times  when,  to  disentangle  himself  and 
practise  Christian  love,  the  believer  must  give  up  everything  ;  there  are  other  times 
when,  to  secure  real  freedom  and  be  the  better  able  to  give,  he  must  keep  and  admin- 
ister. When  Paul  thus  expressed  the  Chri'^tian  duty,  possessing  ns  though  they  pos- 
sessed not  (1  Cor.  7  :  29),  it  is  evident  that  all  he  had  in  view  was  the  diseugaged  and 
charitable  spirit  commended  by  .Jesus,  and  that  he  modified  the  transient  form  which 
this  precept  had  assumed.     There  is  in  the  expressions  of  Jesus  a  sort  of  enthusiasm 


of  disdain  for  those  earthly  treasures  in  which  the  natural  man  places  his  happiness  : 
"  Get  rid  of  those  goods  ;  by  giving  them  away,  cliauge  them  into  heavenly  treas- 
ures, and  yo  sliall  have  made  a  good  bargain  '."  This  is  the  bcinr/  rich  totrard  God 
(ver.  21).  Every  gift  made  by  human  love  constitutes  in  the  eyes  of  God  the  imper- 
sonation of  love,  a  debt  payable  in  heaven.  Love  regards  love  with  allccliou,  and 
will  lind  means  to  requite  it. 

By  this  mode  of  acting,  the  believer  finds  that  he  has  a  treasure  in  lieaven.  Now 
it  is  a  law  of  psychology  (ver.  J54)  tluit  the  heart  follows  the  treasure  ;  so,  your  treas- 
ure once  put  in  God,  your  heart  will  rise  unceasingly  toward  Iliin.  Tiiis  new  atti- 
tude of  the  believer,  who  lives  here  below  with  the  eye  of  his  heart  turned  heaven- 
ward, is  what  Jesus  describes  in  the  sequel.  The  heart,  once  set  free  from  its  earthly 
burden,  will  live  on  the  new  altachirifnt  lo  which  it  is  given  up,  and  on  the  expecta- 
tion with  which  it  is  thus  inspired  (vers.  35-38). 

"Vers.  35-38.*  The  Parable  of  (he  Master  returning  to  his  Uoiise. — "  Let  j'our  loins 
be  girded  about,  and  your  lights  burning  ;  36.  And  ye  yourselves  like  unto  men  that 
wait  for  their  lord  when  he  will  return  from  the  wedding  ;  that,  when  he  comelh 
and  knocketh,  llicy  may  open  unto  him  immediately,  37,  Blessed  are  those  servants 
whom  the  lord  when  he  cometh  shall  find  watching  :  verily  1  say  unto  you,  that  he 
shall  gird  hini.'?elf,  and  make  them  to  sit  down  to  meat,  and  will  come  forth  and  serve 
Ihem.  38.  And  if  he  shall  come  in  the  second  watch,  or  come  in  the  third  walch, 
and  find  them  so,  blessed  are  those  servants  "  Ver.  35.  The  long  Oriental  robe 
requires  to  be  taken  up,  and  the  skirt  fastened  under  the  girdle,  to  allow  freedom  in 
walking  (17  :  8).  If  it  is  night,  it  is  further  required  that  one  have  a  lighted  lamp  in 
Iiis  hand,  to  walk  quickly  and  surely  to  his  destination.  Those  two  figiues  are  so 
thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the  position  of  the  servant  spoken  of  in  the  following 
verses  that  we  have  no  doubt  about  ver.  35  forming  part  of  the  parable,  vers.  30-38. 
Tlio  faithful  believer  is  described  as  a  servant  waiting  over  night  for  the  arrival  cf 
hi.s  master  who  is  returning  from  a  journey.  That  there  may  be  no  delay  in  opening 
the  door  v.iien  he  shall  knock,  he  keeps  himself  awake,  up  and  reiidy  to  run.  The 
lighted  lamp  is  at  his  hand  ;  he  has  even  food  ready  against  the  time  of  his  return. 
And  it  matters  not  though  the  return  is  delayed,  delayed  even  to  the  morning  ;  he 
does  not  yield  to  fatigue,  but  persists  in  his  waiting  attitude.  'Tfislg,  ye  (ver.  3G),  your 
whole  person,  in  opposition  to  the  lighted  lamps  and  girded  loins.  The  word  yu/zoi, 
marriage,  might  here  have  the  sense  of  banquet,  which  it  sometimes  has  (Esth.  2  :  18  ; 
9  :  22  ;  and  perhaps  Luke  14  :8).  It  is  more  natural  to  keep  the  ordinary  sense,  only 
observing  that  the  marriage  in  question  is  not  that  of  the  master  himself,  but  a 
friend's,  in  which  he  is  taking  part.  "What  does  the  master  do  when  received 
in  this  way?  Moved  by  such  fidelity,  instead  of  seating  himself  at  the  table 
prepared,  he  causes  his  devoted  servants  to  s^at  themselves,  and,  girding 
himself  as  they  were  girded,  he  approaches  them  (lapf/Owr)  to  serve  them,  and 
presents  them  with  the  food  which  they  have  prepared  for  him.  And  the  longer 
delayed  his  arrival  is,  the  livelier  is  his  gratitude,  the  greater  are  the  marks  of  his  sat- 
isfaction.   Among  the  ancient  Jews,  the  night  had  only  three  divisions  (Judg.  7  :  19)  ; 

*  Ver.  38.  Instead  of  Kai  eav  e/.ftr]  ev  tij  (hvTEpa  <^v7aKr],  Km  ev  tt]  Tpirij  <pv/,aK7}  e/fJij, 
Km  Evpr]  ovrcji,  ^.  B.  L.  T"'.  X.  some  Mnn.  Syr"^''  Il*'-i.  read  kuv  ev  tij  (hvTspa  nav  ev 
T'"  -pirrj  4<v'/.aKr)  e'/.Oti  kqi  Fvpij  ovru'i.  D.  It"'"i.  ^Marciou,  Km  Eav  E7Jir]  rrj  EOTrEpiVT/ 
i/ifj'ti/iT/  KUi  EvpTjGEL  ovTuc  T.ou/aai  {sic facientes)  kuc  tav  rij  (hvTEpn  Kac  tt)  tpltij.  Jt".  B.  D. 
L.  Syr'"',  omit  ol  dov'/iot  befoie  ekeivoi  ;  S*  lt"'"i.  Ir.  ouut  ol  dov'hoi.  ekeivoi. 


^4-8  COMMENTAKY    OJS^    .ST.   LLKK. 

later,  probably  after  the  Roman  subjugation,  four  were  admitted  :  from  6  to  9,  from 

h  to  midnight,  from  midniglit  to  3,  and  from  3  to  G  o'clock.  If,  as  cannot  be  doubted, 
me  master's  return  represents  the  Parousia,  this  parable  teaches  that  that  event  may 
be  long  delayed — much  longer  than  any  one  even  of  the  disciples  imagined— and  that 
this  delay  will  ne  the  means  of  testing  their  fidelity.  The  same  thought  reappears  in 
the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  (Matt.  25  :  5).  "  While  the  bridegroom  tarried  ;"  and 
agtin  in  that  of  the  laieuls  (35  :  19),  "  After  a  long  time,  the  lord  of  those  servants 
Cometh."  Jesus  thus  proclaimed  His  return,  but  not  the  imiiiediateuess  of  that 
return.  One  hardly  dares  to  apply  the  promise  included  in  this  parable  :  The  Lord  in 
His  glory  serving  him  who  has  faithfully  waited  for  and  served  Him  here  below  1 
There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  of  Luke  17  :  7-9.  But  in  the  latter  passage  .Jesus 
is  expressing  the  feeling  which  should  animate  the  servant :  "  I  am.  after  all  that  I 
have  done,  but  an  unprofitable  servant."  Jesus  wishes,  in  opposition  to  pharisaism, 
to  sweep  away  the  legal  idea  of  merit.  Here  He  is  describing  the  feeling  of  the 
Master  himself  ;  we  aie  in  the  sphere  of  love  both  on  the  side  of  the  servant  and  of 
the  master.     The  variations  of  ver.  38  do  not  affect  its  general  meaning. 

The  Parousia  is  a  sweet  and  glorious  event  to  the  servants  of  Jesus  (vers.  35-38). 
But  at  the  same  time  it  is  solemn  and  awful  :  for  He  who  returns  is  not  only  a  well- 
beloved  Master,  who  comes  to  requite  everything  which  has  been  given  for  Him  ;  He 
is  also  a  thief  who  takes  away  everything  which  should  not  have  been  kept. 

Vers.  39  and  40.*  Parable  of  the  Thief. — "  And  this  ye  know,  that  if  the  goodman 
of  the  house  had  known  what  hour  the  thief  would  come,  he  would  have  watched, 
and  not  have  suffered  his  house  to  be  broken  tlirough.  40.  Be  ye  therefore  ready 
also;  for  tliH  Son  of  man  coraeth  at  an  hour  when  ye  think  not."  Tlvugkete,  ye 
know,  shr.uld  be  taken  as  indie,  rather  than  as  imper.  ;  this  knowledge  is  the  basis  of 
the  exhortation,  ver.  40.  The  application  should  be  made  as  follows  :  If  the  hour  of 
attack  were  known, men  would  not  fail  to  hold  tliemsf  Ives  ready  ^yams^  thaHiour  ;  and 
therefore  when  it  is  not  known,  as  in  this  case,  the  only  way  is  to  be  always  ready. 
Tlie  real  place  of  this  saying  is  possibly  that  given  to  it  by  Matthew  (24  :  42-44)  in 
the  eschat')logical  discourses  ;  Mark  is  here  at  one  with  him.  Of  all  the  sayiugs  of 
Jesu.-i,  tlipre  is  not  one  whose  influence  has  made  itself  more  felt  in  the  writings  of 
the  N.  T.  than  thisi  (1  Thess.  5  :  1,  2  ;  2  Pet.  3  :  10  ;  Rev.  3  :  3,  16  •  15)  ;  it  had 
awakened  a  deep  echo  in  the  heart  of  the  disciples.  It  indicates  the  real  meaning  of 
waitiug  for  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  The  Church  has  not  the  task  of  fixing 
beforehand  that  unknown  and  unknowable  time  ;  she  has  nothing  else  to  do,  in  virtue 
of  her  very  ignorance,  from  which  she  ought  not  to  wish  to  escape,  than  to  leinain 
invariably  on  the  watch.  This  attitude  is  her  security,  her  life,  the  principle  of  her 
virgin  purity.  This  duty  of  watching  evidently  embraces  both  the  disengage ment 
and  the  attachment  which  are  commanded  in  this  discourse. 

Uh.  To  the  Ajyostles  :  vers.  41-53. — Up  till  now,  Jesus  had  been  speaking  to  all 
believers  ;  from  this  point,  on  occasion  of  a  question  put  by  Peter,  He  addresses  the 
apostles  in  particular,  and  reminds  them  of  the  special  responsibility  which  attaches 
to  them  in  the  prospect  of  their  Miister's  return  (vers  41-48)  ;  then  He  gives  vent  to 
the  emotions  which  fill  His  heart  in  view  of  the  moral  revolution  which  He  is  aoout 
to  work  on  the  earth  (vers.  49-53). 

*  Ycr.  39.  !*.  D.  Sy^<^°^  It*''i.  omit  eypTjyop^aev  av  nai.  Ver.  40.  !*.  B.  L.  Q.  some 
Mun.  It.  omit  ow  after  vueii. 


<  iiAi'.    Ml.  :  3'J-4.s.  340 

Vers.  41^8.*  T7ie  Parable  of  the  Two  S(eward.<i.—Tho  magnificence  of  the 
promise,  ver,  '67,  has  otruck  Peter  ;  he  asks  himself  if  such  n  recompense  is  intendcfl 
for  all  the  subji'cls  of  tlie  Messiali,  or  ought  not  rather  to  he  restricted  to  those  wiit) 
shall  play  the  chief  part  in  His  kingdom.  If  that  is  the  meaning  of  his  question,  ver. 
il,  it  relates  not  to  the  parable  of  the  thief  (vers.  89,  40),  hut  to  that  of  the  Master's 
return  (vers.  85-38),  which  would  confirm  the  impression  that  vers.  30  and  40  are  an 
intirpolalion  in  this  discourse,  to  he  ascribed  eilher  to  Luke  or  to  the  document  from 
which  he  borrows.  The  question  of  Peter  recalls  one  put  by  the  same  apostle,  Alatt. 
19  :  27,  which,  so  fur  as  the  sense  goes,  is  exactly  similar.  Jesus  continues  Ills 
teaching  as  if  He  took  no  account  {apa,  then)  of  Peter's  question  ;  but  in  reulily  He 
gives  such  a  turn  to  the  warning  which  follows  about  watchfulness,  tiiat  it  includes 
the  precise  answer  to  the  question.  Foi  a  similar  form.comp.  10  :  25. 26,  John  14  :  21-33, 
ct  al.  Ail  shall  be  recompensed  for  their  fidelity,  but  those  more  magnificently 
than  the  rest  who  have  been  set  to  watch  over  their  brethren  in  the  Master's  absence 
(vers.  4'3-'14)  ;  as,  on  the  contrary,  he  wlio  has  been  in  this  higher  position  and 
neglected  his  duty,  shall  be  punished  much  more  severely  than  the  servants  of  a  less 
exalted  class  (vers.  45-40).  Finally,  vers.  47,  48,  the  general  principle  on  which  this 
judgment  of  the  Church  proceeds. 

Jesus  gives  an  interrogative  form  to  the  indirect  answer  which  He  makes  to 
Peter's  question  :  "  Who  then  is  the  steward  ...  ?"  Whj-  this  style  of  expres- 
sion ?  De  Wette  thinks  that  Jesus  speaks  as  if  He  were  seeking  with  emotion  among 
His  own  for  this  devoted  servant.  Bleek  finds  again  here  the  form  observed,  11  : 5-8  : 
"  Who  is  the  steward  who,  if  his  master  comes  to  find  him,  shall  not  be  estab- 
lished by  him  ...  ?"  Neither  of  the  explanations  is  very  natural.  Jesus  puts 
a  real  question  ;  He  invites  Peter  to  seek  that  steward  (,it  ought  to  be  himself  and 
every  apostle).  Matthew,  by  preserving  (;24  :  45-51)  the  interrogative  form,  while 
omitting  Peter's  question,  wliich  gave  rise  to  it,  supplies  a  remarkable  testimony  to 
the  fidelity  of  Luke's  narrative.  The  stewards,  although  slaves  (ver.  45),  were  ser- 
vants of  a  higher  rank.  The  Oepuireia  is  the  general  bod^^of  domestics,  the  famulHium 
of  the  Lai  ins.  This  term  corresponds  to  the  ali  in  Peter's  question,  as  the  person  of 
the  ruler  to  the  us  in  the  same  question.  The  fut.  KaToari/aei,  shall  make,  seems  to  in- 
dicate that  the  Church  shall  not  be  so  constituted  till  after  the  departure  of  the  Mas- 
ter. KatpoS,  the  <Z«e  season  denotes  the  time  fixed  for  the  weekly  or  daily  distribu- 
tion ;  aiTo/itr/jiov,  their  rations.  There  is  a  difference  between  the  recompense 
promised,  ver.  44,  to  the  faithful  steward  and  that  which  was  pledged,  ver. 
37,  to  the  watchful  servant.  The  laiter  was  of  a  more  inward  character ;  it 
■was  the  expression  of  the  Master's  personal  attachment  to  the  faithful  ser- 
vant who  had  personally  bestowed  his  care  upon  him.  The  former  is  moie 
glorious  ;  it  is  a  sort  of  official  recompense  for  services  rendered  to  the  house  : 
the  matter  in  question  is  a  high  government  in  the  kingdom  of  glor}-,  in  recom- 
pense for  labors  to  which  the  faithful  servant  has  devoted  himself  in  an  influen- 
tial position  during  the  economy  of  grace.  This  relation  is  indicated  by  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  two  KaraaT^nei,  vers.  42  and  44.  This  saying  seems  to  assume  that 
the  apostolate  will  be  perpetuated  till  the  return  of  Christ ;  and  the  figure  employed 

*  Ver.  42.  13  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  read  o  instead  of  /cat  before  ^fiovi/ios.  i**  T*\ 
jjpieriquo^  Vg.  read,  instead  of  KaraaTTjoei,  KaTecTTjaev  (taken  from  Matthew).  D.  L. 
Q.  X.  omit  Tov  before  dtdofai.  Ver.  47.  L.  Syr,  ItP'""!"-;,  omit  fi^de  noirjaas.  Hi.  B. 
T.,  q  instead  of  fiijde. 


350  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

doiis  indisputably  prove  that  triere  will  subsist  in  the  Church  to  the  very  end  a 
ministry  of  the  word  established  by  Christ.  Of  this  the  apostles  were  so  well  awaie, 
that  M'hen  they  were  themselves  leaving  the  earlh,  they  took  care  to  establisli  minis- 
ters of  the  word  to  fill  their  places  in  the  Church.  This  ministry  was  a  continuation, 
if  not  of  their  whole  office,  at  least  of  one  of  its  most  indispensable  functions,  that  of 
which  Jesus  speaks  in  our  parable— the  regular  distribution  of  spiritual  nourishment 
to  the  flock  ;  comp.  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  1  Pet.  5.  The  theory  which  makes  the 
pastorate  emanate  from  the  Church  as  its  representative  is  therefore  not  biblical  ;  the 
ofiice  is  rather  an  emanation  from  the  apostolate,  and  thus  mediately  an  institutijn  of 
Tesus  Himself.  Comp.  Eph.  4  :  11  :  "  He  gave  some  as  .  .  .  pastors  and  teach- 
ers." It  is  Jesus  who  will  have  th'.s  ministry,  who  has  established  it  by  His  manda- 
toiies,  who  procures  for  His  Church  in  every  age  those  who  have  a  mission  to  fill  it, 
and  who  endows  them  for  that  end      Hence  their  weightier  responsibility. 

Vtrs.  45,  46  represent  an  apostle  or  an  unfaithful  minister  under  the  image  of  an 
unprincipled  steward.  The  condition  of  fidelity  being  the  constant  watching  for  the 
Master's  return,  this  servant,  to  set  himself  more  at  his  ease  in  his  unfaithfulness, 
puts  the  thought  of  that  moment  far  off.  So  the  minister  of  Jesus  does,  who,  in 
place  of  watching  for  the  Parousia,  substitutes  the  idea  of  indefinite  progress.* 
What  will  become  of  his  practical  fidelity,  since  it  is  the  constant  watching  for  Die 
Loi  d  which  should  be  its  support  ?  Beating,  eating,  and  drinking  are  figures,  like  Ihe 
regular  and  conscientious  distribution  (ver.  42).  The  ecclesiastical  functionaries  de- 
scribed in  this  piece  are  those  who,  instead  of  dividing  the  word  of  Christ  to  the 
Chuich,  nnpose  on  it  their  own,  who  tyrannize  over  souls  instead  of  tending  thtm, 
and  show  themselves  so  much  the  more  jealous  of  their  rights  the  mure  negligently 
lliey  discharge  their  duties.  AlxotoiieIv,  &\Y\c{\y,  to  cleate  «i  fwc",  denotes  a  punisli- 
nieut  which  was  really  used  amontr  the  nations  of  antiquity  (Egyptians,  Chaldeans, 
Greeks,  Romans  ;  comp.  also  3  Sam.  12  :  31  ;  1  Chron.  20  :  3  ;  Heb.  11  :  37).  But 
this  literal  meaning  does  not  suit  here,  since  we  still  hear  of  a  position  which  this  ser- 
vant is  to  receive  ;  at  least  if  we  do  not  admit  with  Bleek  that  in  these  last  words 
Jesus  passes  from  the  figure  to  the  application.  Is  it  not  more  natural,  even  though 
we  cannot  cite  examples  of  the  usage,  to  understand  the  word  in  the  sense  of  the 
Latin  expression,  Jlagellis  discindere,  to  scourge  the  back  with  a  rod  (the  ;  shall  be  beat- 
en with  many  stripes,  ver.  47)  ? 

The  portion  in  question  after  this  terrible  punishment  is  imprisonment,  or  even  the 
extreme  penalty  of  the  law — the  cross,  for  example,  which  was  always  preceded  by 
scourging.  The  word  awiaTcjv,  "with  tJie  unbelievers,"  tnii^ht  support  the  explana- 
tion given  by  Bleek  ;  but  though  the  application  pierces  the  veil  of  Ihe  parable,  the 
strict  sense  is  not  altogether  set  aside  :  "  those  who  cannot  be  trusted,"  strangers  to 
the  house.  Matthew  says  :  the  Jiypocrites,  false  iriends  {\he  Pharisees).  A  faithless 
apostle  will  be  no  better  treated  than  an  adversary.  2o  have  one's  portion  with  is  a 
Hebraistic  and  Greek  expression,  which  signifies  to  share  ihe  lot  of  .     .     . 

Vers.  47  and  48.  The  Principle. — "  And  that  servant  v/hich  knew  his  lord's  will, 
and  prepared  nothing,  neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten  with  many 
stripes.  48.  But  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  commit  thiogs  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be 
beaten  wilh  few  stripes.  For  unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  much  be 
required  ;  and  to  whom  men  have  committed  much,  of  him  they  will  ask  the  more.'" 

*  See  on  vv.  18,  19,  closing  paragraph.— J.  H. 


cii.vi'.   xn.  :  45-48.  351 

A-Iong  with  the  superiority  of  position  described  above,  the  apostles  had  received  u 
superior  degree  of  kiioieledge  ;  it  is  to  this  new  advantage  that  ver.  47«  refers.  It  is 
Ciinuected  with  the  preceding  ;  for  tlie  liigher  the  servaul  is  placed  hy  his  master,  the 
fuller  are  the  iustruclii»ns  lie  receives  from  him.  The  same  miiimer  of  judging  will 
be  extended  to  this  other  kmd  of  superiority.  Ostervald,  undcrslaudiug  hivrov  with 
fi)/  hoi/idcai,  translates,  "who  pnpared  not  lUmxclf.''  This  ellipsis  is  inadmissible. 
The  mtauing  is,  who  prepared  not  [what  was  necessary  to  receive  his  master  accord- 
ing to  his  wi.shes].  It  is  the  antithesis  of  vers.  35-87.  The  servant  whom  the  master 
has  not  initiated  so  specially  into  his  intentions  is  nevertheless  responsible  to  a  certain 
extent.  Fur  he  also  has  a  certain  knowledge  of  his  will  ;  comp.  the  application  of 
this  same  principle.  Kom.  2  :  13.  Ver.  4ai.  The  general  maxim  on  which  the  whole 
of  the  preceding  rests.  The  two  parallel  propositions  are  not  wholly  synonymous. 
The  passive  t(5y07/,  was  given,  simply  denotes  an  assigned  position;  the  middle  form, 
ircfiffjiVTo,  men  hate  committed,  indicates  that  the  trust  was  taken  by  the  master  as  his 
own  interest  ;  the  figure  is  that  of  a  sum  depcsited.  Consequently  the  first  term  is 
properly  applied  to  the  apostolic  commission,  and  to  the  authority  with  which  it  is  ac- 
companied ;  the  secund,  to  the  higher  light  granted  to  the  apostles.  What  is  claimed 
of  each  is  not  fruits  which  do  not  depend  on  the  laborer,  but  devotedness  to  work. 
Meyer  thinks  that  the  more  signifies  "  7nore  than  had  been  committed  to  him."  It  is 
more  natural  to  understand  :  more  than  will  be  exacted  from  others  who  have  received 
leb.s.     On  the  subject  of  the  verbs  TraptOevro  and  aiu/aovaiv,  see  ver.  20. 

Maik  h:is  preserved  (13  :  37),  at  the  close  of  the  parable  of  the  porter,  which  he 
alone  has,  Inil  which  refers  to  ihe  same  duty  of  watchfulness  as  the  two  preceding 
p;)iabk'S  in  Luke,  this  final  exhortation  :  "  What  I  say  unto  you,  1  say  unto  all. 
Watch."  This  word  coriesponds  in  a  striking  manner  to  the  meaning  of  .lesus'  an- 
swer tn  Peter  in  Luke  :  "  All  should  watch,  ftr  all  shall  share  in  the  blaster's  per- 
sonal requital  (vc.  37)  ;  but  very  specially  {ncpiaaorepon,  ver.  48)  ye,  nij' apostles,  who 
have  to  expect  either  a  greater  rccomjnnse  or  a  severer  punishment."  On  this  sup- 
position, Luke  relates  the  question  of  Peter  and  the  indirect  answer  of  .Jesus  ;  JMark, 
a  word  of  .lesus  which  belonged  to  His  direct  answer.  How  is  the  relation  between 
the  two  to  be  explained  ?  Holtzinann  thinks  that  Luke  of  himself  imagined  the  ques- 
tion of  Peter,  founding  on  this  last  word  ot  Jesus  in  Mark.  He  cannot  he!i)  confess- 
ing, further,  that  this  inteipohition  has  been  very  skilfully  managed  by  Luke. 
Such  procedure,  in  reality,  would  be  as  ingenious  as  arbilrar}'^  ;  it  is  inadmissible. 
The  account  of  Luke,  besides,  finds  a  confirmation  in  the  text  of  Matthew,  in  which 
the  interrogative  form  of  the  answer  of  Jesus  is  preserved  exactly  as  we  find  it  in 
Luke,  and  that  thouuh  ^latlhew  has  omitted  Peter's  question,  which  aluue  explains 
this  form.  Weizs-icker  supposes  inversely"  that  the  qm  slion  of  Peter  in  Lake  was 
borrowed  by  the  hitier  from  the  interrogative  form  of  the  saying  of  Jesus  in  Matt. 
24  :  4")  :  "  Who  is  then  the  faithful  servant  ...  V  But  Clark's  account  stands 
1o  defend  that  of  Luke  against  this  new  accusation.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  the  last 
words  of  the  discourse  in  ]\Iark  hail  no  meaning  except  in  reference  to  Peter's  ques- 
tion reported  by  Luke.  Luke's  form  cannot  be  derived  from  Mark  without  protest 
frnm  ^Matthew,  nor  from  Matthew  without  Mark  in  his  turn  protesting.  We  have 
evidently,  as  it  were,  the  pieces  of  a  wheel  work  taken  down  ;  each  evangelist  has 
faithtully  preserved  to  us  tho.se  of  them  which  an  incomplete  tradition  had  trans- 
mitted to  him.  Applied  to  a  written  document,  this  dividing  woidd  form  a  real 
mutilation  ;  as  the  result  of  a  circulating  tradition,  it  admits  of  eas^'  explanation. 

After  having  thus  followed  the  natural  course  of  the  conversation,  Jesus  returns 
to  the  thought  from  whicii  it  had  started,  the  vanity  of  earthly  goods.  He  shows 
how  this  truth  directly  applies  to  the  present  situation  (vers.  49-03). 


35^  COMMENTAKY    OK    ST.   LLKE. 

Vers.  49  and  50.*  The  Character  of  the  Immediate  Fidure. — "  I  am  come  to  send 
fire  on  the  (jarlli  ;  and  what  will  1  if  it  be  already  kiudled  ?  50.  But  1  have  a  bap- 
tism to  be  baptized  with  ;  aud  how  am  1  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  !"  "  Is  it 
a  time,"  said  Elisha  to  the  unfaithful  Gehazi,  "  to  receive  lands  aud  cattle  when  the 
hand  of  God  is  upon  Israel,"  that  is  to  say,  when  Shalmaneser  is  at  the  gates  of 
l^amaria  ?  Is  it  a  time  for  the  believer  to  give  himself  up  to  the  peaceable  eujoyment 
of  earthly  goods  when  the  great  struggle  is  beginning?  The  Church  is  abnut  t.)  be 
born  ;  Israel  is  about  to  peiish,  aud  the  Holy  Land  to  be  given  over  to  the  Genliles. 
Such  is  the  connection,  too  moving  to  be  expressed  by  a  logical  pailicle,  which  is 
implied  by  the  remarkable  asyndeton  between  vers.  48  aud  49.  Uvp  fSaAAstv,  strictly, 
to  throw  a  firebrand.  Jesus  feels  that  Ilis  presence  is  for  the  earth  the  brand  whicii  is 
to  set  everything  on  fire.  "  Eveiy  fiuitful  thing,"  says  M.  Reuan,  "  is  rieh  in  wars." 
Jesus  understood  the  fruilfuluess  of  Ills  work.  The  expression  I  am  conic,  which 
Jesus  frequently  uses  in  the  Syn.,  finds  its  only  natural  explanation  in  His  lips  in  the 
consciousness  which  He  had  of  His  pre-existence.  The  fire  in  question  heie  is  not 
the  fire  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  some  of  the  Fathers  thouglit.  The  sequel  proves 
that  it  is  the  spiritual  excitement  produced  in  opposite  directions  by  the  coming  of 
Jesus,  wheuce  will  result  the  Sia/j.Epir7fioS,  the  division,  described  from  ver.  51  onward. 
Two  humanities  will  henceforth  be  in  conflict  within  the  bosom  of  every  nation,  un- 
der every  roof  :  this  thought  profoundly  moves  the  heart  of  the  Prince  of  peace. 
Hence  the  brf)ken  style  of  the  following  words.  The  «  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
that,  which  it  often  has,  and  rl  in  the  sense  of  how  :  "  How  I  wish  that  this  fiie  were 
already  burning  !"  (Olshausen,  De  Welte,  Bleek).  But  this  meaning  of  the  two 
words  el  and  ri,  and  especially  of  the  second,  is  not  very  natural.  Accordingly  Gro- 
tius,  Meyer,  etc.,  have  been  led  to  admit  two  propositions — the  one  forming  a  ques- 
tion, the  other  the  answer  :  "  And  what  will  I  ?  Oh,  that  it  only  were  already  kin- 
dled'"  The  sense  is  radically  the  same.  But  the  second  proposition  would  come 
too  abruptly  as  an  answer  to  the  pieceding.  Ewald  recurs  to  the  idea  of  a  single  sen- 
tence, only  he  seeks  to  give  to  Oe/.u  a  meaning  which  better  justifies  the  use  of  e'l  : 
"  Aud  of  what  have  I  to  complain  if  it  be  alreaily  kindled?"  This  sense  docs  net 
diflier  much  from  that  which  appears  to  us  the  most  natural  :  "  What  have  I  more  to 
seek,  since  it  is  already  kiudled?"  This  saymg  expiesses  a  mouruful  satisfaction 
with  the  fact  that  this  inevitable  rending  of  humanity  is  already  beginning,  as  proved 
by  the  event  recorded  vers.  1-12.  Jesus  submits  to  bring  in  war  where  He  wished 
to  establish  peace.     But  it  must  be  ;  it  is  His  mission  :  "  I  am  come  to    .     .     ." 

Meantime  this  fire,  which  is  already  kindled,  is  far  yet  from  bursting  into  a  flame  ; 
in  order  to  that  there  is  a  condition  to  be  fulfilled,  the  thought  of  which  weighs 
heavily  on  the  heart  of  Jesus  :  there  needs  the  fact  which,  by  manifestmg  the  deadly 
antagonism  between  the  world  and  God,  shall  produce  the  division  of  which  Jesus 
speaks  between  mau  aud  man  ;  there  needs  the  cross.  Without  the  cross,  the  confla- 
gration lighted  on  the  earth  by  the  presence  of  Jesus  would  very  soon  be  extin- 
guished, and  the  world  would  speedily  fall  back  to  its  undisturbed  level  ;  hence  ver. 
50.  The  6e  is  adversative  :  "  But  though  tiie  fire  is  already  kindled,  it  needs,  in 
order  that  it  ma}'^  blaze  forth,  that  .  .  ."  The  baptism  in  question  here  is  the 
same  as  that  of  whicli  Jesus  speaks,  Matt.  20  :  22  (at  least  if  the  expressions  analo- 

*  Ver.  49.  Instead  of  fi?,  which  the  T.  E.  reads  with  11  Mjj.  (Byz.)  and  the 
Mnn.,  10  Mjj.  (Alex.)  40  Man,  read  enc.  Ver.  50.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ov 
(T.  R.)  and  otov  (Alex.) 


ciiAi'.    XI 1.  ;  -lu-.^o.  353 

gous  to  these  are  authentic  hi  that  passage).  Jesus  certainly  makes  an  allusion  to 
His  baptism  at  tlic  liaiuls  of  Ili.s  foieiunncr,  wliicii  inchided  a  cousecratiou  lo  deatli. 
The  ligure  is  as  follows  .  Jesus  sets  Iliinsulf  about  to  bu  plunged  iulo  a  bath  of 
llaniu,  from  which  He  shall  come  forth  the  torch  which  shall  set  the  whole  world  ou 
file.  The  Lord  expiessus  with  perfect  caudor  tjje  hnpression  of  terror  which  is  pro- 
duced ia  Him  by  the  necessity  of  going  through  this  furnace  of  sulfering, 
ZvvixeaOai,  to  be  cloi<iiy  pressed  (slraiteucd),  tiometinics  by  the  power  of  love  (2  Cor. 
5:14);  elsewhere,  by  that  of  conflicting  desirus  (Phil.  1  :  23)  ;  here,  doubtless,  by 
mournful  iuipalitiice  to  have  done  willi  a  painful  task.  He  is  under  pressure  lo 
enter  into  this  suffering,  because  He  is  in  haste  to  get  out  of  it.  "  A  prelude  of 
Gellisemane,"  sa^s  Gess  in  an  admirable  passage  on  this  discourse.*  Here,  indetd, 
we  have  the  lirst  crisis  of  that  agony  of  which  v.-e  catch  a  .second  indication,  John 
12  :  27  :  "  Now  is  my  soul  troubled,  and  what  shall  I  say  V"  and  which  is  breathed 
foilh  in  all  its  intensity'  in  Gethsimane.  Luke  alone  lias  preserved  lo  us  the  memo- 
rial of  this  tiist  levelalion  of  Ihe  inmost  feelings  of  Jesus. 

After  this  saying,  which  is  a  sort  of  parenthesis  diawn  forth  by  the  impression, 
produced  ou  Him  by  the  thought  in  the  preceding  veise,  He  resumes  at  ver.  51  the 
devflupment  of  His  declaration,  ver.  49. 

Veis.  51-5y.f  The  Pifiure  of  the  Future  Just  Declared. — "  Suppose  ye  that  1  am 
come  to  give  peace  on  saith?  1  tell  you,  nay;  but  division.  52.  For  from  hence- 
forlh  thcie  shall  be  five  in  one  house  divided,  three  against  two,  and  two  against 
Ihiee.  53,  The  fatliei  shall  be  divided  against  the  son,  and  llie  son  against  the  father  ; 
the  mother  against  the  daughtci,  and  the  daiighlcr  against  the  mother  ,  the  mother- 
in-law  against  her  daughter-in-law,  and  the  daughtei-iu-luw  against  her  mother-in- 
law."  AoKfi-f,  suppose  ye,  is  no  doubt  aimed  at  the  illusion  with  which  the  disciples 
flattered  themselves,  yet  hoping  for  the  establishment  or  the  Messianic  kingdom 
without  snuggles  or  sufferings  (19  :  11).  Jesus  dots  not  deny  that  peace  should  be 
the  llual  result  of  His  work  ;  but  certainly  He  denies  that  it  will  be  lis  immediate 
effect.  The  simplest  solution  of  Ihe  phrase  alX'  7/  is  to  take  it  as  an  abbreviation  of 
ovxi  aOo  v  :  "  Nothing  else  than  .  .  ."  Vers.  52  and  5B  describe  ihe  fiie  lighted 
by  Jesus.  By  the  preaching  of  the  disciples,  the  conflagration  spreads;  with  their 
arrival,  it  invades  everj'  famil}'  one  alltr  another.  But  "  the  fifth  ci  mmandment 
itself  must  give  way  lo  a  look  directed  to  Him  .  .  .  Undoubtedly  it  is  God  who 
has  formed  the  natural  bonds  between  men  ;  but  Jesus  introduces  a  new  principle, 
holier  than  the  bond  cf  nature,  to  unite  men  to  one  another"  (Gess,  p.  22).  Even 
Holtzmann  observes  that  the  fire  persons  indicated,  ver.  52,  are  expressly  enumeia- 
ted,  ver.  53  :  father,  son,  mother,  daughter,  daughter-in-law.  Matthew  (10 :  35) 
has  not  preserved  this  delicate  touch  ;  are  we  to  think  that  Luke  invented  this  nice 
precision,  or  that  Matthew,  finding  it  in  the  common  document,  has  oblileiated  it? 
Two  suppositions  equally  improbable.  'En-i  indicates  hostility,  and  with  moie 
energy  in  the  last  two  numbers,  where  this  prep,  is  cnnslrued  with  the  ace.  :  proba- 
bly because  between  mother  in-law  and  daughter-in-law  religious  hostility  is  strength- 
ened b}'  previous  naturid  animosity, 

*  Work  quoted,  p.  79.  "  We  cast  ourselves  in  contemplation  into  the  oppressed 
soul  of  Jesus     .     .     .     into  His  Passion  before  Ihe  Passion"  (ib.). 

f  Ver.  53.  !*.  B.  D.  L.  T"*.  U.  some  Mnn.  Vg.,  (hc/JtpiafjTiaovrnt  instead  of 
tha/iepiaOTjaerai.  Alex,  some  Mdq.,  Qvyarepa,  nrjTepa,  instead  of  (ivyarpi,  iirjTpt. 
i*.  B.  D.  L.  omit  (ivtj]q. 


354  COMMEIN'TAKY    0]S'    ST.   LUKE. 

5th.  To  the  Multitudes :  vers.  54-59. — After  having  announced  and  described  the 
rending,  the  first  symptoms  of  which  He  already  discerns,  Jesus  returns  anew  to  the 
multitude  whom  He  sees  plunged  in  security  and  impenitence  ;  He  points  out  to 
those  men,  so  thoroughly  earthly  and  self-satisfied,  the  thunderbolt  which  is  about  to 
break  over  their  heads,  and  beseeches  them  to  anticipate  the  explosion  of  the  divine 
wrath. 

Vers.  54-50.*  The  Signs  of  tlie  Ti7nes.—"  And  He  said  also  to  the  people,  When  ye 
see  a  cloud  rise  out  of  the  west,  straightway  ye  say,  There  cometh  a  shower  ;  and  so 
it  is.  55.  And  when  ya  see  the  south  wind  blow,  ye  say,  There  will  be  heat  ;  and  it 
ccmeth  to  pass.  50.  Ye  hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky  and  of  the 
earth  ;  but  how  is  it  that  ye  do  not  discern  this  time  '!"  'E/isye  61  uni.  He  said  also,  is, 
as  we  have  already  seen  (i.  p.  177),  the  formula  which  Luke  uses  when  Jesus  at  the 
close  of  a  doctrinal  discourse  adds  a  last  word  of  more  gravity,  which  raises  the 
question  to  its  full  height,  and  is  intended  to  leave  on  the  mind  of  the  hearer  an  im- 
pression never  to  be  effaced  :  "  Finally,  I  have  a  last  word  to  address  to  you."  This 
concluding  idea  is  that  of  the  urgency  of  conversion.  Country  people,  in  the  matter 
of  weather,  plume  themselves  on  being  good  prophets,  and  in  fact  their  prognostics 
do  not  mislead  them  :  "  Ye  say,  ye  say  .  .  .  and  as  ye  say,  it  comes  to  pass." 
The  rains  in  Palestine  come  from  the  JMediterranean  (1  Kings  18  :  44)  ;  the  south 
wind,  on  the  contrary,  the  simoom  blowing  from  the  desert,  brings  drought.  These 
people  know  it  ;  so  their  calculation  is  quickly  made  {eUieux,)  ;  and,  what  is  more,  it 
is  correct  {kol  yiverai,  twice  repeated).  So  it  is,  because  all  this  passes  in  the  order  of 
things  in  which  they  are  interested  :  they  give  themselves  to  discover  the  future  in 
the  ])resent  ;  and  as  they  will,  they  can.  And  this  clear-sightedness  with  which  man 
is  endowed,  they  put  not  forth  in  the  service  of  a  higher  interest  !  A  John  the  Bap- 
tist, a  Jesus  appear,  live  and  die,  without  their  concluding  that  a  solemn  hour  for 
them  has  struck  !  This  contradiction  in  their  mode  of  acting  is  what  Jesus  desig- 
nates by  the  word  hypocrites.  What  they  want  is  not  the  eye,  it  is  the  will  to  use  it. 
The  word  Kuipoi,  the  propitious  time,  is  explained  by  the  expression,  19  :  44,  tlie  time 
of  thy  visitation.  AoKL/^u^eiu,  to  appreciate  the  importance.  Matt.  10  : 1-3  ought  not  to 
be  regarded  as  parallel  to  our  passage.  The  idea  is  wholly  different.  Oul}^  in  Mat- 
thew our  ver.  50  has  been  joined  with  a  parable  similar  to  that  of  Luke  in  point  of 
form,  and  that  by  an  association  of  ideas  easily  imdei  stood. 

Vers.  57-59. f  17ie  Urgency  of  Reconciliation  to  God. — "  Yea,  and  why  even  of 
yourselves  judge  ye,  not  what  is  right  ?  58.  (For)  While  thou  goest  with  thine  adver- 
sary to  the  magistrate,  as  thou  art  in  the  way  give  diligence  that  thou  mayest  be  de- 
livered from  him  ;  lest  he  hale  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the 
oiBcer,  and  the  officer  cast  thee  into  prison.  59.  I  tell  thee,  thou  shalt  not  depart 
thence  till  thou  hast  paid  the  very  last  mite."  A  new  example  (ri  (5J  «a()  of  what 
they  would  make  haste  to  do,  if  their  good-will  equalled  their  intelligence.  'k(t>' 
kavTuv,  of  yourselves  ;  same  meaning  as  the  "  at  once  ye  say'  (ver  54).  It  should  be 
so  natural  to  perform  this  dutj^  that  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  remind  them  of 

*  Ver.  54.  0  Mjj.  (Alex.)  some  Mnn.  omit  ttjv.  ^.  B.  L.,  ettl  instead  of  otto. 
Ver.  50.  0  "Mjj.  40  Mnn.  iSyr.  It.  Vg.  put  tov  ovpavov  before  t7/S  yni.  ^.  B.  L.  T"'., 
ovK  oidaTE  doKifia^cLV  instead  of  ov  6uKifja^£TE. 

\  Ver.  58.  Some  Mjj.,  7:apa6unEi  instead  of  -rapa^u  (T.  R.  with  14  Mjj.)  ;  /3aA«  or 
(3a?hn  instead  of  paAXri  (T.  II.  willi  some  Mnn.).  Ver.  59.  5^.  B.  L.,  ewS  instead  of  eui 
ov.     5  Mjj.,  TO  £(7X0701/  instead  of  tov  eaxarov  (14  Mjj.). 


ciiAi'.   XH.  :  b-i-o'J  ;  xiir.  :  1-3.  355 

It.  Bui,  alas  1  in  the  domain  of  which  Jes-us  is  speaking  Ihoy  are  not  so  quick  to 
draw  conolusious  as  in  that  wherein  thej'  haltitually  move.  Their  finger  needs  lo  be 
put  on  things.  To  ihnawv,  irhat  ixjuttt,  denotes  the  right  t^tep  lo  be  taken  in  the  fiven 
situation — to  wit,  as  the  sequel  thows.  rteoncilialion  lo  God  by  conversion.  The  fol- 
lowing parable  (ver.  08)  is  piesenled  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation,  because  tlie  a])- 
plication  is  blended  with  the  figure.  The  for  (ver.  58)  has  this  force  :  "  Why  dcst 
not  thou  act  thus  with  God  V  For  it  is  what  thou  wouldsl  not  fail  to  do  with  a 
human  adversai-y."  We  nuist  avoid  translating  the  <jS  vTroyai,  "  when  thou  goest  " 
(E.  v.).  'S2;  signifies  "  while  thou  goest  ;"  it  is  explained  by  the  in  the  way  which 
follows.  It  is  before  arriving  at  the  tribunal,  while  you  are  on  the  way  thither,  that 
you  must  get  reconciled  to  him  who  accuses  you.  Once  before  the  judge,  justice 
takes  its  course.  The  important  thing,  therefore,  is  to  anticipate  that  fatal  term, 
'Epyniyiav  dovvui  seems  to  be  a  Latiuisin,  operam  dare.  In  the  application,  God  is  at 
once  adversary,  judge,  and  oliicer  :  the  fiist  by  His  holiness,  the  second  by  His  jus- 
tice, the  third  by  His  power.  Or  should  we  understand  by  the  creditor,  God  ;  by  the 
judge,  Jesus  ;  by,  the  ctVicers,  the  angels  (]Matl.  13  :41)?  Will  it  ever  be  possible, 
relatively  to  God,  to  pay  the  hist  mite  V  Jesus  does  not  enter  into  the  question,  which 
lies  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  parable.  Other  passages  seem  to  prove  that  in  His 
view  this  term  ran  never  be  reached  (]Mark  9  :  42-49).  There  is  in  the  whole  passage. 
and  especially  in  the  I  tell  thee  (ver.  59),  the  expression  of  a  personal  consciousness 
wholly  free  from  all  need  of  reconciliation. 

iMatthew  places  this  saying  in  the  Sermon  on^the  Blount  (v.  25,  2G)  ;  he  applies  it 
to  the  duty  of  reconciliation  between  men  as  the  condition  of  man's  reconciliation  to 
God.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  saying,  placed  there  by  Matthew  in  virtue  of  a 
simple  association  of  ideas,  finds  its  real  context  in  Luke,  in  the  discourse  which  is 
so  perfectly  linked  together. 

10.  Conversation  on  two  Events  of  tlieBay  :  13  :  1-9.  Luke  does  not  say  that  the 
following  event  took  place  immediately  after  the  preceding,  but  onl}'  in  a  general 
way,  iv  avT(L  rcj  Katpu>  (ver.  1),  in  the  same  circumstances.  The  three  following  say- 
ings (vers.  1-3,  4,  5,  G-9)  breathe  the  same  engagedness  of  mind  as  filled  the  preced- 
ing discourses.  The  external  situation  also  is  the  same.  Jesus  is  moving  slowly  on, 
taking  advantage  of  every  occasion  which  presents  itself  to  direct  the  hearts  of  men 
to  things  above.  The  necemty  of  conversion  is  that  of  which  Jesus  here  reminds  His 
hearers  ;  in  12  :  54  et  seq.     He  had  rather  preached  its  urgency. 

1st.  Vers.  1-3.*  17ie  Galileans  massacred  by  Pilate.  Josepliusdoes  not  mention  the 
event  to  which  the  following  words  relate.  The  Galileans  were  somewhat  restless  ; 
conflicts  with  the  Roman  garrison  easily  arose.  In  the  expression,  mingling  their  blood 
with  that  of  the  sacrifice,  there  is  a  certain  poetical  emphasis  which  often  character- 
izes popular  accounts.  The  impf.  7Tapr/cai>  signifies  "  they  were  there  relating." 
Jesus  with  His  piercing  eye  immediately  discerns  the  prophetical  significance  of  the 
fact.  The  carnage  due  to  Pilate's  sword  is  only  the  prelude  to  thai  which  will  soon 
be  carried  out  by  the  Roman  army  throughout  all  the  Holy  Land,  and  especially  in 
the  temple,  the  last  asylum  of  the  nation.  Was  not  all  that  remained  of  the  Galilean 
people  actually  assembled  forty  yeais  later  in  the  temple,  expiating  their  national  im- 
penitence under  the  stroke  of  Titus?    The  word  likewise  (ver.  3)  may  therefore  be 

*  Ver.  2.  5*.  B.  D.  L..  ravm  instead  of  Toi'ivra.  Ver.  8.  The  Mss.  are  divided  be- 
tween unavrui  (T.  R.,  By/..)  and  onotug  (Alex.)  A.  D.  M.  X.  F.  and  Bevetal  Mnn., 
fteTCirnrjatjrt'  instead  of  /xtravorirt. 


356  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

taken  lilerally.     A  serious,  indivitlnal,  and  national  conversion  at  the  cell  of  Jesus 
could  alone  have  prevented  that  catasslroplie. 

2d.  Vers.  4,  5.*  The  Penons  buried  by  the  Tower  of  Siloam.  The  disaster  which  has 
been  related  recalls  another  to  His  mind,  which  He  mentions  spontaneously,  and 
wliich  He  applies  specially  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  The  aqueduct  and  pool 
of  Siloam  are  situated  where  the  valley  of  Tyr(;peon,  between  ISion  and  Moriah,  opLUS 
into  that  of  Jehoshaphat.  Forty  years  later,  the  fall  of  the  houses  of  the  burning 
capital  justified  this  warning  not  less  strikingly.  When  a  disaster  comes  upon  an  in- 
dividual, there  is  a  disposition  among  men  to  seek  the  cause  of  it  in  some  special 
guiltiness  attaching  to  the  victim.  Jesus  turns  His  hearers  back  to  human  guilt  in 
general,  and  their  own  in  particular  ;  and  from  that,  which  to  the  pharisaic  heart  is 
an  occasion  of  proud  confidence,  He  derives  a  motive  to  humiliation  and  conversion, 
an  example  of  wliat  was  called,  12  :  57,  judging  what  is  right. 

3d.  Vers.  6-9. f  The  Time  of  Grace.  Here  again  we  have  the  formula  eleyE  6e, 
which  announces  the  true  and  final  word  on  the  situation.  (See  at  12  :  54.)  A  vine- 
yard forms  an  excellent  soil  for  fruit-trees.  As  usually,  the  fig-tree  represents  Israel. 
God  is  the  owner,  Jesus  the  vine-dresser  who  intercedes.  'Iva-l  (-yevT/rai),  To  ichat 
end?  Kat,  moreover  ;  not  only  is  it  useless  itself,  but  it  also  renders  the  ground  use- 
less. Bengel,  Wieseler,  Weizsacker  find  an  allusion  in  the  three  years  to  the  period 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  which  was  already  passed,  and  so  draw  from  this  parable 
chronological  conclusions.  Altogether  without  reason  ;  for  such  details  ought  to 
be  explained  by  their  relation  to  the  general  figure  of  the  parable  of  whi<;h  they  form 
a  part,  and  not  by  circumstances  wholly  foreign  to  the  description.  In  the  figure 
chosen  by  .Jesus,  three  years  are  the  lime  of  a  full  trial,  at  the  end  of  which  the  in- 
ference of  incurable  steiility  may  be  drawn.  Those  three  years,  therefore,  represent 
the  time  of  grace  granted  to  Israel  ;  and  the  last  year,  added  at  the  request  of  the 
gardener,  the  fort}^  years'  respite  between  the  Fiiday  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  which  were  owing  to  that  prayer  of  .Jesus  :  "  Father,  forgive 
them."  The  mss.  have  the  two  forms  Kowpia,  from  Khirpiov,  and  Konpiav,  from  KOTrpia. 
The  proposition  «av //ei;  ,  .  .  ia  elliptical,  as  often  in  classical  Greek;  we  must 
understand  /caAwS  ixet..  The  Alex.,  by  placing  slg  rd  jxeklnv  before  e'l  f>l  /Jvye,  pro- 
bably wished  to  escape  this  ellipsis  :  "  If  it  bear  fruit,  let  it  be  for  the  future  [live]." 
The  extraordinary  pains  of  the  gardener  bestowed  on  this  sickly  tree  represent  the 
marvels  of  love  which  Jesus  shall  display  in  His  death  and  resurrection,  then  at  Pen- 
tecost and  by  means  of  the  apostolic  preaching,  in  order  to  rescue  the  people  from 
their  impenitence.  This  parable  gives  Israel  to  know  that  its  life  is  only  a  respite, 
and  that  this  respite  is  neaiing  its  end.  Perhaps  Paul  makes  an  allusion  to  this  say- 
ing when  he  admonishes  Gentile  Chiistians,  the  branches  of  the  wild  olive,  saying  to 
them,  knel  kuI  av  eKKOTTT/arj  (Rom.  11  :  22). 

Holfzmann  acknowledges  the  historical  truth  of  the  introduction,  vtr.  1.  He  as- 
cribes it  to  the  Logia,  like  everything:  which  he  finds  true  in  the  introductions  of 
Luke.  But  if  this  piece  was  in  A.,  of  which  Matthew  made  use,  how  has  he  omitted 
it  altogether? 

*  Ver.  4.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ovtoi  (T.  R.)  and  avrm  (Alex).  Ev  before 
lepovnalrjfi  is  omitted  l»y  B.  D.  L.  Z.  Ver.  5.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  o/xoius 
and  unavTui  ;   l)ptweeu  fiemvorjre  and  perapoarjTjTe. 

f  Ver.  7.  !!*.  B.  D.  L.  T"'.  some  Mnn.  Syr'^"^  It.  Vg.  add  af  ov  after  rpta  err/.  Ver. 
9.  !!^.  B.  L.  T".  2  Mnn.  place  £/.S  to  iieTaov  before  ei  6e  /JTjye. 


(11. u'.   XIII.  :  4-n.  357 

11.  The  Progress  of  the  Kin f/dom  :  13:10-21.  During  tins  jouriic}',  as  throughout 
His  whole  niitiistry,  Jesus  tliil  not  fail  to  frecjueut  llic  syuagogues  on  the  Sabbalh 
days.  The  preseut  navnilive  iulroduces  us  to  one  of  those  scenes.  Perhaps  (he 
fr>eliiig  which  led  Luke  to  place  it  liere,  was  that  of  the  contrast  between  Israel, 
which  was  hasting  to  destruction,  and  the  Church,  which  was  already  growing.  A 
gluri  JUS  deed,  which  tells  strongly  on  the  multitude  (vers.  lU-17),  leads  Jesus  to  de- 
tciibe  in  two  parables  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (vers.  18-21). 

Id.  Vers.10-17.*  The  Healing  of  (he  jmIhccI  Woman.  And  first  the  miracle,  vers. 
10-13.  This  woman  was  completely  bent,  and  her  condition  was  connected  wilh  a 
psychical  weakness,  which  in  turn  arose  from  a  higher  cause,  by  which  the  will  of 
the  sufferer  was  bound.  This  state  of  things  is  described  by  the  phrase  :  a  spirit  of 
infirmity.  Jesus  first  of  all  heals  the  psychical  malady  :  Thou  art  looned.  AfAvnOui, 
the  perfect  :  it  is  an  accomplished  fact.  The  will  of  the  sufferer  through  faith 
draws  from  this  declaration  the  strength  which  it  lacked.  At  the  same  time,  by  the 
laving  on  of  His  hands,  Jesus  restores  the  bodily  organism  to  the  control  of  the 
emancipated  will  ;  and  the  cure  is  complete. 

The  conversation,  vers.  14r-17.  It  was  the  Sabbath.  The  ruler  of  the  synagogue 
imagines  that  he  should  apply  to  Jesus  the  Rabbinical  regulation  for  practising  phy- 
sicians. Only,  not  daring  to  attack  Him,  he  addresses  his  discourse  to  the  people 
(ver.  14).  Qepa-eijeaOe,  come  to  get  yourselves  healed.  Jesus  takes  up  the  challenge. 
The  plural  hypocrites  is  certainly  the  true  reading  (comp.  the  plural  adversaries,  ver. 
IT).  Jesus  puts  on  trial  tlie  whole  part}'  of  whom  this  man  is  the  representative.  The 
severitj''  of  His  apostrophe  is  jusslitied  l)y  the  comparison  which  follows  (vers.  15  and 
16)  between  the  freedom  which  they  take  with  the  Sabbalh  law,  when  their  own  in- 
terests, even  the  mrst  trivial,  are  involved,  and  the  extreme  rigor  with  which  they 
apply  it,  when  the  question  relates  to  their  neighbor's  interests,  even  the  gravest,  as 
well  as  to  their  estimate  of  the  conduct  of  Jesus.  The  three  contrasts  between  ox 
{or  ass)  and  daughter  of  Abraham,  between  stall  and  Satan,  and  between  the  two 
bonds,  material  and  spiiitual,  to  be  unloosed,  are  obvious  at  a  glance.  The  1-ast  touch  : 
eighteen  years,  in  which  the  profounuest  pity  is  expressed,  admirably  closes  the  an- 
swer. 

Holtzmann  thinks  that  what  has  led  Luke  to  place  this  account  here,  is  the  con- 
nection between  the  eighteen  years'  infirmity  (ver.  11)  and  the  three  years'  sterility 
(ver.  7)  !  Xot  content  wi»h  ascribing  to  Luke  this  first  puerililj'.  he  imputes  to  him  a 
second  still  greater  :  that  which  has  led  L'lke  to  place  at  ver.  18  the  jiarable  of  the 
grain  of  musiard  seed,  is  that  it  is  borrowed  from  the  vegetable  kingdom,  like  that  of 
the  fig-tree  (veis.  7-9) !  ! 

This  so  nervous  reply  brings  the  admiration  of  the  people  to  a  height,  and  shuts 
the  mouth  of  His  adversaries.  Jesus  then,  rising  to  the  general  idea,  of  which  this 
deed  is  only  a  particular  ai)()lication,  to  wit,  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  God  de- 
velops it  in  two  parables  fitted  to  present  this  truth  in  its  two  chief  aspects  ;  the  two 
are,  the  mustard  seed  (vers.  18,  19)  and  the  learen  (vers.  20,  21). 

2d.  Vers.  18-21.  2he  Tico  Parables. — The  kingdom  of  God  has  two  kinds  of 
power  :  the  power  of  extension,  by  which    it   gradually  embraces    all  nations  ;  the 

*  Ver.  11.  ».  B.  L.  T*.  X.  someMnn.  l(ri"W"e_Yg.  omit  ^i' after  yvvrj.  Ver.  14.  The 
Mss.  are  divided  between  ev  Tavrai.'i  (T.  R.)  ami  ev  avTui^  (Ale.x.).  Ver.  15.  Some 
Mjj.  and  Mnn.  S3'r.,  o  IjjGovi  instead  of  o  Kvpioi;.  17  Mj].  80  ^Inn.  It.  Vg.,  v-oKpcrai 
in.slcad  of  v-oKfum^  which  the  T.  R.  reads  with  D.  V.  X.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  fcyr. 


358  COilMENTAIlY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

power  of  transformation,  by  which  it  gradually  regenerates  the  whole  of  human  life. 
The  natural  symbol  of  the  first  is  a  seed  which  acquires  in  a  short  time  an  increase 
out  of  all  proportion  to  its  original  smaliness  ;  that  of  the  second,  a  fermenting  ele- 
ment, materially  very  inconsiderable,  l)ut  capable  of  exercising  its  assimilating  virtue 
over  a  large  mass.  Those  two  parables  form  part  of  the  collection.  Matt.  13  ;  31, 
et  seq.  ;  the  first  only  is  found  Mark  4  :30,  31. 

Vers.  18  and  19.*  Again  the  formula  tv.fje  de  (or  ovv,  as  some  Alex.  read).  The 
two  questions  of  ver.  18  express  the  activity  of  mind  which  seeks  in  nature  the  anal- 
ogies which  it  needs.  The  first  :  "To  what  i«  like  .  .  .,"  affirms  the  existence 
of  the  emblem  sought  ;  the  second:  "To  what  shall  I  liken  .  .  .,"  has  the  dis- 
covery of  it  in  view.  Mark  likewise  introduces  this  parable  with  two  questions  ;  but 
they  differ  both  in  substance  and  form  from  those  of  Luke.  Tradition  had  indeed 
preserved  the  memory  of  this  style  of  speaking  ;  only  it  had  modified  the  tenor  of 
the  questions.  We  must  certainly  reject  with  the  Alex.,  in  the  text  both  of  Luke 
and  Matthew  the  epithet  great,  applied  to  tree.  Jesus  does  not  mean  to  contrast  a 
great  tree  with  a  small  one,  but  a  tree  to  vegetables  m  general.  The  mustard- plant  in 
the  East  does  not  rise  beyond  the  height  of  one  of  our  small  fruit-trees.  But  the  excep- 
lional  thing  is,  that  a  plant  like  mustard,  which  belongs  to  the  class  of  garden  herbs, 
and  the  grain  of  which  is  exceedingly  small,  puts  forth  a  woodj'  stalk  adorned  with 
branches,  and  becomes  a  rentable  tree.  It  is  thus  the  striking  type  of  the  dispropor- 
tion which  prevails  between  the  smaliness  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  its  commence- 
ment, when  it  is  yet  enclosed  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  its  final  expansion,  when  it 
shall  embrace  all  peoples.  The  form  of  the  parable  is  shorter  and  simpler  in  Luke 
than  in  the  other  two. 

Vers.  30  and  21. f  Jesus  anew  seeks  an  image  (ver.  20)  to  portray  the  power  of  the 
kingdom  of  G:id  as  a  principle  of  moral  transformation.  There  is  here,  as  in  all  the 
pairs  of  parables,  a  second  aspect  of  the  same  truth  ;  comp.  5  :  36-38  ;  15  :  3-10  ; 
Matt.  13  :  44-46  :  John  10  :  1-10.  We  even  find  in  Luke  15  and  John  10  a  third 
parable  completing  the  other  two.  Leaven  is  the  emblem,  of  every  moral  principle, 
good  or  bad,  possessing  in  some  degree  a  power  of  feimentation  and  assimilation  ; 
comp.  Gal.  5  :  9.  The  three  measures  should  be  explained,  like  the  three  years  (ver. 
7),  by  the  figure  taken  as  a  whole.  It  was  the  quantity  ordinarily  employed  for  a 
batch.  They  have  been  understood  as  denoting  the  three  branches  of  the  human 
race,  Shemites,  Japhethites,  and  Hamites  ;  or,  indeed,  Greeks,  Jews,  and  Samaritans 
(Theod.  of  Mopsuestia)  ;  or,  again,  of  the  heart,  soul,  and  spirit  (Augustine).  Such 
reveries  are  now  unthoughl  of.  The  idea  is,  that  the  spiritual  life  enclosed  in  the 
Gospel  must  penetrate  the  ichole  of  human  life,  the  individual,  thereby  the  family, 
and  through  the  latter,  society. 

Those  two  parables  form  the  most  entire  contrast  to  the  picture  which  the  Jewish 
imagination  had  formed  of  the  establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  One  wave 
of  the  magic  wand  was  to  accomplish  everything  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  In 
opposition  to  this  superficial  notion,  Jesus  sets  the  idea  of  a  moral  development  which 
Works  by  spiritual  means  and  takes  account  of  human  freedom,  consequently  slow 
and  progressive.     How  can  it   be  maintained,  in   view  of   such  sayings,    that  He 

*  Ver.  18.  ?*.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  ItP'^-'Wue,  yg_^  ^y^  instead  of  6e  after  e/^syev.  Ver. 
19.  !!*.  B.  D.  L.  T".  Syr<^"^  It''"i.  omit  /teja  after  dev^pov. 

j  Ver.  20.  The  Alex.  It.  Vg.  add  mi  before  7ra/tv,  Ver.  21.  The  MSS.  are 
divided  between  evEKpvipev  (T.  R.)  and  EKpvfev  (Alex.). 


CHAP.  xiir.  :  22-27.  359 

believed  in  the  immediate  nearness  of  His  return  ?  The  place  which  those  two  par- 
ables occupy  in  the  great  collection  ]\Iatt.  13  is  evidently  the  result  of  a  systematic 
airatigemcut  ;  there  lluy  have  the  ellect  of  two  flowers  in  a  herbarium.  Luke  has 
restored  them  to  their  natural  situation.  His  account  is  at  once  independent  of  and 
superior  to  that  ot  Matthew  ;  Mark  accords  with  Mattliew. 

SECOND  CYCLE.— 13  :  22  ;  17  :  10. 
A  New  Series  of  Incidents  in  the  Journey. 

Yer.  22  serves  as  an  intrcductiou  to  this  whole  cycle.  Jesus  slowly  continues  His 
jouiney  of  evaugelizaliou  {6ienoptvETo,  Ik  2)roaeded  throvg/i  the  country),  stopping  at 
every  city,  and  even  at  every  vijhige  {Kara,  distributive),  taking  advantage  of  every 
occasion  which  presents  itself  to  instruct  both  those  who  accompany  Him  and  the 
people  of  the  place,  only  puisuing  in  the  main  a  general  direction  toward  Jerusalem 
{ihi'idaKui',  TToiovfievoS).  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  this  remark,  which  is 
founded  on  the  general  introduction,  9  :  51,  and  in  keeping  with  the  analogous  forms 
used  in  cases  of  suumiing  up  and  transition,  which  we  have  observed  throughout  this 
Gospel. 

1.  The  Rejediun  of  Israel,  and  the  Admission  of  the  Gentiles:  13:28-^0.  An  un- 
foreseen question  calls  forth  a  new  flash.  It  was  probably  evoked  by  a  saying  of 
Jesus,  which  appeared  opposed  to  the  privileges  of  Israel,  that  is  to  say,  to  its  national 
participation  in  the  ^lessiauic  blessedness. 

Vers.  2o-2T.*  "  Then  one  said  unto  Him,  Lord  are  there  few  that  be  saved  ? 
And  He  said  unto  them.  24.  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gale  :  for  many,  I  say 
unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.  25.  When  once  the  Master  of 
the  house  is  risen  up,  and  shut  to  the  door,  and  ye  begin  to  stand  without,  and  to 
knock  at  the  door,  saying  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us,  and  He  shall  answer  and  say 
luito  you,  1  know  you  not  whence  yc  are  :  26.  Then  shall  ye  begin  to  sa}'.  We  have 
eaten  and  drunk  in  Thy  presence,  and  Thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets.  27.  But  He 
shall  saj',  I  tell  you,  I  know  j^ou  not  whence  ye  are  ;  depart  from  me,  all  ye  workeis 
of  iniquity."  The  question  of  vcr.  23  was  to  a  cei tain  extent  a  matter  of  curiosity. 
In  sueh  cases  Jesus  immediatelj''  gives  a  practical  turn  to  His  answer.  Comp.  12  :  41, 
John  3:3;  and  hence  Luke  says  (ver.  23);  "He  said  to  tlicm.'"  Jesus  gives  no 
direct  answer  to  the  man  ;  He  addresses  a  warning  to  the  people  on  the  occasion  of 
His  question.  The  Messianic  kingdom  is  represented  under  the  flgure  of  a  palace, 
into  which  men  do  not  enter,  as  might  appear  natural,  by  a  magnificent  portal,  but 
by  a  narrow  gate,  low,  and  scarcely  visible,  a  mere  postern.  Those  invited  refuse  to 
pass  in  thereby  ;  then  it  is  closed,  and  they  in  vain  supplicate  the  master  of  the  house 
to  re-open  it  ;  it  remains  closed,  and  they  are,  and  continue,  excluded.  The  applica- 
tion is  blended,  to  a  certain  extent,  as  in  12  :  58,  59,  with  the  figure.  'Ayuvt^tcOai,  to 
strive,  refers  in  the  parable  to  the  difliculty  of  passing  through  the  narrow  opening  ; 
in  the  application,  to  the  humiliations  of  penitence,  the  struggles  of  conversion.  The 
•v^/Y/^V  f/«^(' represents  attachment  to  the  lowly  IMessiah  ;  the  magnificent  galewa}"^  b}- 
which  the  Jews  would  have  wished  to  enter,  would  represent,  if  it  were  mentioned, 
the  appearance  of  the  glorious  Messiah  whom  they  expected.     7  declare  untoyov, 

*  Ver  24.  ».  B.  D.  L.  2  Mnn.  It"''-!..  Giym?  instead  of  ut;?.???.  Ver.  25.  ».  B.  L. 
j(aiiq  Yp  j-pad  ^,,p,f  only  once.  Ver.  2t3.  The  mss.,  ap^eafie  «ir  np^jicOe.  Ver.  27 
B.  T"'.,  Aeyuv  instead  of  ?'.eyu.     J*.  Vss.  omit  this  word.     B.  L.  K.  T*'.  omit  v//«s. 


/ 


360  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 


saj^s  Jesus  :  They  will  think  it  incredible  that  so  great  a  number  of  Jews,  with  (he 
ardent  desire  to  have  part  in  that  kingdom,  bhould  not  succeed  in  entering  it.  Tlie 
word  Tvo'Aloi,  many,  proves  the  connection  between  this  discourse  and  the  question  of 
ver.  33.  Only  Jesus  does  not  say  whether  there  will  be  few  or  many  saved  ;  He 
confines  Himself  to  saying  that  there  will  be  many  lost.  This  is  the  one  impoiluut 
matter  for  practical  and  individual  application.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  this 
truth  that  there  should  be  many  saved.  The  meaning  of  the  expression,  will  seek  to 
enter  in,  ver.  34,  is  explained  at  ver.  35  by  the  cries  which  are  uttered,  and  the  knock- 
ings  at  the  gate  ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  words,  but  shall  not  be  able,  ver.  84,  is 
explained  by  vers.  36  and  27,  which  describe  the  futility  of  those  efforts. 

It  is  not  possible  to  connect  the  a^'  oi,  when  once,  wilh  the  preceding  phrase  ;  the 
period  would  drag  intolerably.  The  principal  proposition  on  which  this  conjunction 
depends  must  therefore  be  sought  iu  what  follows.  This  might  be  km  up^eaOs  (not 
up^TjaOe),  ver.  2ob  :  "When  once  the  Master  has  risen  ...  ye  shall  begin,  on 
ymir  side  (noi),  .  .  .  ;"  or  /cat  anoKfjiOeli  epel  at  the  end  of  the  same  ver.  35  : 
"  He,  on  His  side  (kc/),  shall  answer  and  say  .  .  .  ;"  or,  finallj%  and  most  nat- 
urally of  all,  the  apodosis  may  be  placed,  as  we  have  put  it  in  our  translation,  at  ver. 
26,  in  the  words  :  tote  ap^eaOe :  then  ye  shall  begin.  The  word  then  favors  this  con- 
struction. The  decitrive  act  of  the  Master  iu  rising  from  His  seat  to  shut  the  door 
symbolizes  the  fact  that  conversion  and  pardon  are  no  longer  possible  (ri^'  ov,  when 
once).  What  moment  is  this  ?  Is  it  that  of  the  rejection  and  dispersion  of  Israel  ? 
No  :  for  the  Jews  did  not  then  begin  to  cry  and  to  knock  according  to  the  descrip- 
tion of  ver.  35.  Is  it  the  time  of  the  Parousia,  when  the  grent  Messianic  festival  fcha'l 
open  ?  Xo  ;  for  the  Jews  then  living  shall  be  converted  and  received  into  the  palace. 
The  words,  when  ye  shall  see  (ver.  38),  strikingly  recall  a  similar  feature  iu  the  parable 
of  the  wicked  rich  man,  that  in  which  this  uuhappy  one  is  represented  in  Hades  con- 
templating from  afar  the  happiness  of  Lazarus  iu  Abraham's  bosom.  We  are  thereby 
led  to  apply  what  follows  ("when  ye  shall  see  Abraham  .  .  ."  ver.  33)  to  the 
judgment  which  Jesus  pronounces  at  present  on  the  unbelieving  Jews,  excluding  them 
in  the  life  to  come  from  all  participation  in  the  blessings  of  salvation.  Gess  :  "  The 
house  where  Jesus  waits  can  be  no  other  than  heaven  ;  it  is  the  souls  of  the  dead  who 
remind  him,  ver.  36,  of  the  relations  which  He  had  with  them  on  the  earth."  This 
ver.  36  indicates  the  tendency  to  rest  salvation  on  certain  external  religious  advan- 
tages :  "  Thou  wast  one  of  ourselves  ;  we  cannot  perish."  Is  there  in  the  words,  / 
know  not  lulience  ye  are  (ver.  27),  an  allusion  to  the  false  confidence  which  the  Jews 
put  in  their  natural  descent  from  Abraham  ? 

Vers.  38-30.*  "  There  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
you  yourselves  thrust  out.  39.  And  they  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  from  the 
west,  and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  30.  And,  behold,  there  are  last  which  shall  be  first,  and  there  are  first  which 
eball  be  last."  Wailings  express  despair,  gnashings  of  teeth  rat;e.  The  souls  of  Ihe 
condemned  oscillate  between  those  two  feelings.  The  article  before  the  two  substan- 
tives has  the  force  of  setting  aside  all  former  similar  impressions  as  comparativelj^  in- 
significant.    Messianic  blessedness  is  represented  in  ver.  38,  according  to  a  figure 

*  Vev.  28.  Marcion  substituted  for  the  enumeration,  ver.  28  :  travTas  rovi  6iKaini<, 
and  omitted  veis.  39  and  36 


riiAi".   xiir.  :  28-35.  361 

familiar  among  the  Jews  (14  : 1.1),  under  tlic  image  of  a  banrjuet  presided  over  by  the 
patriarchs.  From  ver.  29  it  follows  Unit  tlie  believing  Gonlilos  arc  admitted  as  well 
as  tlie  faithfid  posterity  of  Abraham.  Thus  there  aie  really  many  persons  saved. 
The  words  (tnd  behold  (ver.  'M)  refer  to  the  surprise  produced  by  this  entire  reversal 
of  position.  The  lunt  here  are  not  those  who,  within  the  confines  of  the  kingdom, 
occupy  the  last  place  ;  they  are,  as  the  context  proves,  those  who  are  excluded  from 
it  ;  they  are  in  tlie  last  place,  absolutely  speaking.  The  first  are  all  the  saved.  The 
first  proposition  evidently  applies  to  the  Gentiles  who  are  admitted  (ver.  29),  the  sec- 
ond to  the  Jews  who  are  rejected  (vers.  27  and  28). 

Sayings  similar  to  those  of  vers.  25-27  are  found  in  Matt.  7,  at  the  end  of  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  ]\Iount,  also  in  2.")  :  10-13  and  30.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from 
regarding  them  as  uttered  on  a  different  occasion.  Those  of  ver.  28  and  29  appear  in 
Miitt.  8  :  11,  12,  immediately  after  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  son.  But  they  are  not 
so  well  accounted  for  there  as  in  the  context  of  Luke.  The  apophthegm  of  ver.  30 
forms  (^latt.  19  :  30  and  20  :  K!)  the  preface  and  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the 
laborers  called  at  different  hours.  In  this  context,  the  last  who  become  the  first  are 
manifestly  the  laboreis  who,  having  come  later,  find  themselves  privileged  to  receive 
the  same  hire  ;  the  first  who  become  the  last  are  those  wlio,  having  wrought  from  the 
beginning  of  the  da}',  are  therebj'-  treated  less  advantageously.  Is  this  sense  natural  ? 
Is  not  the  application  of  those  expression.^  in  Luke  to  the  rejected  Jews  and  admitted 
Gentiles  more  simple  ?  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  to  tlie  Romans  aie  the  only 
true  commentary  on  this  piece,  and  on  the  sayings  of  vers.  28  and  20  in  particular. 
Now,  as  the  historical  truth  of  the  whole  passage  is  certified  b}'  the  parallel  of  Mat- 
thew, we  have  a  clear  proof  that  the  gospel  of  Paul  no  way  differed  in  substance 
from  that  of  Jesus  and  the  Twelve. 

2.  2'he  Farewell  to  the  Thcocreiey :  13  :  31-35.  When  the  heart  is  full  of  some  one 
feeling,  everything  which  tells  upon  it  from  without  calls  forth  the  expression  of  it. 
And  so,  at  the  time  when  the  mind  of  Jesus  is  specially  occupied  about  the  future  of 
His  people,  it  is  not  surprising  that  this  feeling  comes  to  light  with  every  circum- 
stance which  supervenes.  There  is  therefore  no  reason  why  lliis  perfectly  natural 
fact  should  be  taken  to  prove  a  systematic  arrangement  originating  with  Luke. 

Vers.  31-33.*  "  The  same  day  there  came  certain  of  tlie  Pharisees,  saying  unto 
Him,  Get  thee  out,  and  depart  hence  ;  for  Herod  will  kill  thee.  33.  And  He  said 
unto  them.  Go  ye  and  tell  that  fox.  Cehold,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  1  do  cures  to-day 
and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  1  shall  be  perfected.  33.  Nevertheless,  I  must 
walk  to-da\',  and  to-morrow,  and  the  day  fallowing  ;  for  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet 
perish  out  of  Jerusalem."  We  cannot  help  being  surprised  at  seeing  the  Pharisees 
interesting  themselves  in  the  safety  of  Jesus,  and  we  are  naturally  led  to  suspect  a 
feint,  if  not  a  secret  understanding  with  Herod.  Already  at  a  umch  earlier  date 
Mark  (3  :  G)  had  showed  us  the  Hcrodians  and  Phai  isees  plotting  together.  Is  not 
s  imetliing  of  the  same  kind  now  repeated?  Herod,  on  whose  conscience  tliere 
already  weighed  the  nuuder  of  a  prophet,  was  not  anxious  to  commit  another  crime 
of  the  same  sort  ;  but  no  moi'e  did  he  wish  to  see  this  public  activity  of  Jesus,  of 
which  his  dominions  had  been  for  some  time  the  theatre,  and  the  popular  excitement 
which  accompanied  it,  indefinitely  prolonged.  As  to  the  Pharisees,  it  was  natural  that 

*  Ver.  31.  7  Mjj.  fAlex.)  15  Mnn..  i.,i>a  instead  of  rjuEpn.  Ver.  33.  i».  B.  L.  2  Mnn., 
aTrnTt?u  instead  of  r-ire/u.  B.  some  .Mnn.  V.ss.  add  tjucpa  after  Tpirt).  Ver.  33.  !*. 
D.  -\.  some  Mnn.,  ep,\'oufi7;  instead  of  tx^F^^'V- 


362  COiniENTARY    ON   ST.  LUKE. 

they  should  seek  to  draw  Jesus  to  Judea,  where  He  would  full  more  directly  under 
tlie  power  of  the  Sauhedrhn.  It  had  been  agreed,  Iberefoie,  to  bring  this  lengthtned 
journey  to  an  end  by  terrifying  Jesus.  He  penetrates  their  intrigue  ;  and  hence  He 
addresses  His  reply  to  Herod  Himself,  making  the  Pharisees  at  the  same  time  His 
message-bearers,  as  they  had  been  the  king's  message-bearers  to  him.  "  I  see  well 
on  whose  pari  you  come.  Go  and  answer  Herod  .  .  ."  Thus  also  the  epilhit 
fox,  which  He  applies  to  this  prince,  finds  its  explanation.  Instead  of  issuing  a  com- 
mand, as  becomes  a  king,  he  degrades  himself  to  play  the  part  of  an  intriguer.  Not 
daring  to  show  the  teeth  of  the  lion,  he  uses  the  tricks  of  the  fox.  Fault  has  beiu 
found  with  Jesus  for  speaking  with  so  little  respect  of  the  prince  of  His  people.  But 
it  must  be  remembered  that  Herod  was  the  creature  of  Caesar,  and  not  the  lawful  htir 
of  David's  throne. 

The  meaning  of  the  first  part  of  the  answer  (ver.  326)  is  this  :  "  Reassure  thyself, 
thou  who  seekest  to  teriify  me  ;  my  present  activity  in  no  way  threatens  thy  power  ; 
1  am  not  a  Messiah  such  as  he  whose  appearance  thou  dieadest  ;  some  devils  cast  out, 
some  cures  accomplished,  such  is  all  my  work  in  thy  dumiuions.  And  to  complete 
the  assuring  of  thee,  I  promise  thee  thai  it  shall  not  be  long  ;  to-day,  to-morrow,  and 
a  day  more  ;  then  it  will  be  at  an  end."  These  last  words  svmbolically  express  the 
idea  of  a  very  short  time  ;  comp.  Hos.  6  : 3.  We  may  regard  reAEiovfiuL  either,  with 
Bleek,  as  Ailic  fuf.  raid.,  or,  what  seems  simpler,  as  a  pres.  mid.  used  for  the  fut.  to 
designate  what  is  immediately  imminent.  The  term  so  near  can  be  none  otlier  than 
that  of  His  life  ;  comp,  336.  Bleek  and  others  give  TeTieiovuat  the  active  meaning  : 
"  I  close  [my  ministry  in  Galilee]."  But  the  v/ord  T£?.etoi'/Ltai  in  this  context  is  too 
solemn  to  suit  this  almost  superfluous  sense.  The  Alex,  reading  oTroreAu,  1  flnuh, 
does  not  so  well  correspond  to  the  parallel  term  EKBdAlu,  I  caM.  out.  as  the  received 
reading  emreAu,  I  work.  It  is  probably  owing  to  a  retrospective  influence  of  the  word 
TeAeiovjint. 

Ver.  38.  Short  as  the  time  is  which  is  allowed  to  Jesus,  it  remains  none  the  less 
true  {7t'a7]v)  that  He  will  quietly  pursue  His  present  journey,  and  that  no  one  will 
force  Him  to  bting  His  progress  and  work  hastily  to  an  end.  The  f5ei,  Irmtst,  which 
refers  to  the  decree  of  Heaven,  justifies  this  mode  of  aotin<r.  YiopfVEafiaL,  to  travel, 
the  emldem  of  life  and  action  ;  this  word  is  opposed  to  rsTieiov/jai,  which  designates 
the  time  at  which  the  journeying  ends.  T?)  txo/uEvrj  {the  day  following),  ver.  33,  corre- 
sponds to  TTj  TjUTy  {the  third  day),  ver.  32  ;  Jesus  means  :  "  1  have  only  three  dnys  ; 
but  I  have  them,  and  no  one  v/ill  cot  them  short."  Wieseler  takes  the  three  daj-s 
liteirtlly,  and  thinks  that  at  the  time  when  Jesus  thus  spoke  He  was  but  three  dnys' 
journey  from  Bethany,  whither  he  was  repairing.  It  would  be  ditficuU  to  rednce  so 
weighty  a  saying  to  greater  poverty  of  meaning.  Bleek,  who  does  not  succeed  in 
overcoming  the  difliculty  of  this  enigmatical  utterance,  proposes  to  suppress  in  ver. 
S3  the  words  aijfiEpov  kol  nupiov  Kai  as  a  very  old  interpolation.  No  document  sup- 
ports this  supposition,  which  would  have  the  effect  of  mutilating  one  of  the  most 
striking  declaiations  of  our  Lord. 

The  last  words  of  ver.  33  are  the  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  Pharisees.  They,  too, 
maj'  reassure  themselves  ;  their  prey  will  not  escape  them.  Jerusalem  has  the  mon- 
opoly of  killing  the  prophets,  and  on  this  highest  occasion  the  city  will  not  be  de- 
prived of  its  right.  The  word  ivf^ix^'o-i;  it  i<  jwssible,  contains,  like  the  entire  saying, 
a  scathing  irony  :  "  It  is  not  suitable  ;  it  would  be  contrary  to  use  and  wont,  and,  in 
a  manner,  to  theocratic  decorum,  if  such  a  prophet  as  I  should  perish  elsewhere  than 


CHAP.  XIII.  :  ;):5-3r).  ;5(j3 

in  Jerusalem  !"  No  diuibt  John  the  Baptist  hail  perished  away  from  that  city.  But 
such  ironies  must  not  be  taken  in  tlie  strict  letter.  Jerusaicin  could  not  let  her  privi- 
lege bo  twice  taken  from  her  in  so  short  a  time  1  The  relation  indicated  by  on,  for, 
is  this  :  "  I  know  that  Ihe  time  which  is  at  my  disposal  in  tavor  of  Galilee  will  not  be 
cut  short  by  my  death  ;  for  I  am  not  to  die  elsewhere  than  at  Jerusalem  .  .  ," 
According  to  Holtzniann  this  passage,  peculiar  to  Luke  and  taken  from  A,  was  omit- 
t(  (1  by  -Matthew  because  of  its  obscurity.  Must  he  not  have  omitted  many  others  for 
ilie  same  reason  ? 

Already,  vers.  4,  5,  on  occasion  of  an  event  which  more  particularly  concerned 
the  (lalileans,  the  mind  of  Jesus  had  been  directed  toward  Jeiusakm.  Now  the 
ihnught  of  this  capital,  become,  as  it  weie,  the  executioner  of  the  proi)liets,  takes  pos- 
session of  His  heart.     His  grief  breaks  forth  ;  the  prelude  to  the  teais  of  Palm-day. 

Vers.  34  and  35.*  "  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killest  the  prophets,  and 
stonest  them  that  are  sent  unto  thee  ;  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children 
together,  as  a  hen  doth  gather  her  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not  ! 
35.  Behold,  yotir  house  is  left  unto  you.  But  I  say  unto  you,  3^0  shall  not  see  me 
until  Ihe  time  come  wlicn  ye  shall  say.  Blessed  is  He  that  comelh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  It  is  surprising  at  first  sight  to  find  such  an  apostrophe  to  Jerut-alem  in  the 
heart  of  Galilee.  But  were  not  the  Pharisees  whom  Jesus  hud  before  Him  the  repre- 
sentatives of  that  capital  ?  Comp.  5  :  17  :  "  There  were  Phaiisees  and  doctors  of  the 
law  silting  by,  whicl)  were  come  out  of  every  town  of  Galilee,  and  Judta,  and  Jeiu- 
salem. "  Had  He  not  been  setting  their  minds  at  rest  as  such  ?  Such  an  apostrophe 
to  Jeru.salem,  regarded  from  a  distance,  has  something  about  it  more  touching  than 
if  He  had  already  been  within  its  walls.  In  Matt.  23  :  37  it  is  placed,  during  his  so- 
journ at  Jerusalem,  on  one  of  the  days  preceding  the  Passion,  and  at  the  puiut  wlitn 
Jesus  leaves  the  temple  for  the  last  time.  This  situation  is  grand  and  tragic  ;  but  is 
it  not  probable  that  Ibis  placing  of  the  passage  was  due  to  the  certainly  too  narrow 
application  (see  below)  of  the  expression  your  Jiouse  (ver.  3'))  to  the  temple  ?  The 
words  f/ty  children  have  been  applied  bj'  Baur  not  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
only,  but  to  all  Israelites,  Galileans  included  ;  and  he  denies,  consequently,  that  this 
saying  could  serve  to  prove  the  conclusion  which  has  often  been  drawn  from  it,  viz. 
that  the  narrative  of  the  Syu.  implies  the  numerous  sojourns  at  Jerusalem  which  are 
related  by  John.  But  the  relation  of  ver.  34  to  the  latter  part  of  ver.  33  compels  us 
to  restrict  the  mearnng  of  the  word  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  ;  its  only  admissi- 
ble sense  also  in  Luke  19  :  44  ;  and,  taken  by  itself,  its  only  natural  sense.  Only,  it 
is  assumed  that  the  fate  of  the  population  of  the  capital  involves  in  it  that  of  the 
other  inhabitants  of  the  country. 

The  contrast  between  1  icould  .  .  .  and  ye  icovld  not  proves  the  sad  privilege 
which  man  possesses  of  resisting  the  most  earnest  drawings  of  grace.  As  to  Jesus, 
while  mournfully  asserting  the  futilit}^  of  His  elTorts  to  save  His  people.  He  docs  not 
the  less  persevf-re  in  His  work  ;  for  He  knows  that,  if  it  has  not  tiie  result  that  it 
might  and  should  have,  it  will  have  another,  in  which  God  will  notwithstanding  carry 

*  Ver.  34.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  rriv  roGaiav  (Alex,  and  T.  R.')  and  ra 
vonn-.n  (Byz.  Svr.  ItP'"'')'"').  Ver.  3.').  T.  K.  adds  tininor  after  oLKoi  v/iup.  with  D.  E.  G. 
H.  M.  U.  X.  A.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  lu'i-ri'i"-.  Ail  the  3Ijj.,  Ae;.(j  rif  (».  L. 
without  (Se)  instead  of  cifiTjv  (Se  /eyu,  which  T.  li.  reads  with  several  Mnn.  (J  ]\Ijj.  omit 
on.  The  -MSS.  are  divided  between  twr  (or  tui  uv)  riiTj  (or  Tiiet)  o-i  ei-ii-e  (T.  li.)  and 
euS  (or  £u>iav)  enrnre  (Alex.,  according  to  Matthew). 


'>04-  CO.MMEXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE, 

out  His  plan  to  fulfilment.  Some  Jews  saved  shall  become,  in  default  of  the  nation 
as  a  whole,  the  instruments  of  the  world's  t-alvaliou.  Jesus  represents  Himself,  ver. 
34,  as  a  protector  stretching  His  compassionate  aims  over  the  theocracy  and  its  capi- 
tal, because  He  knows  well  that  He  akme  can  rescue  them  from  the  catastrophe  by 
which  they  are  threatened.  It  is,  in  another  form,  the  idea  of  the  parable  of  the  tig- 
tree  {veis.  G-9).  Now  Israel  rejects  the  protection  which  He  offers.  What  more  can 
Jesus  do  (ver.  35)  ?  Leave  to  Israel  the  care  of  its  own  defence,  that  is  lo  say — Jesus 
knows  it  well — give  it  up  to  a  ruin  which  He  alone  could  avert.  Such  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  ^/f^w?'  Jiouse  is  Uft  unto  you;  henceforth  it  is  given  over  to  3'Liur 
guardianship.  Jesus  frees  Himself  of  the  charge  which  His  Father  had  confided  to 
Him,  the  salvation  of  the  theocracy.  It  is  in  its  every  feature  the  situation  of  the 
divine  yhepherd  in  His  last  endeavor  to  save  the  flock  of  slaughter,  Zach.  11  :  4-14. 
The  application  of  the  expression  your  hofise  to  tlie  temple,  in  such  a  unity,  must  be 
felt  to  l)e  much  too  special.  The  place  in  question  is  Canaan,  the  abode  divinely 
granted  to  the  people,  and  especially  Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  the  theocracy.  Tlie 
authenticity  of  the  wonl  tp/jfioi,  deaolate  (ver.  35),  appears  more  than  doubtful  Ijoth  in 
Matthew  and  Luke.  If  this  word  were  authentic,  it  would  refer  to  the  withdrawal 
of  Jesis'  visible  presence  ;  camp.  Ezek.  11,  where  the  cloud  rising  from  over  the 
sauctuary  passes  eastward,  and  from  that  moment  the  temple  is  empty  and  desidale. 
But  the  government  vfilv,  "is  left  to  you,"  and  the  Avant  of  sufficient  authoiities, 
speak  against  this  reading. 

Like  a  bird  of  prey  hovering  in  the  air,  theenemj'  is  threatening  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem.  Jesus,  who  was  shekel ing  them  under  His  wings  as  a  hen  her  brood, 
willidraws,  and  they  remain  exposed,  reduced  thenceforth  to  defend  themselves. 
The  adversative  form,  hut  I  my  unto  you,  is  certainly  preferable  to  tliat  of  ]\Ialthew, 
for  Isay  unto  you.  "  I  go  awaj'  ;  but  1  declare  to  you,  it  will  be  for  longer  than  you 
think  ;  that  ni}'  absence  may  be  brought  to  an  end,  you  yourselves,  by  the  change  of 
your  sentiments  in  regard  to  me,  will  have  to  give  the  signal  for  my  return."  The 
words  eui  uv  f/i>i,  iintil  it  come  to  pass  t/iat  .  .  .,  aie  the  true  reading.  Thismoial 
change  will  certainly  (tus)  come  about,  1  ut  when  (ar)  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Some 
commentators  (Paulus,  Wieseler,  etc.)  think  that  the  time  here  pointed  to  is  Palm- 
day,  on  which  Jesus  received  the  homage  of  part  of  the  people,  and  particularly  of  the 
Galileans,  to  whom  these  sayings  had  been  addressed.  "  Ye  shall  not  see  me  again, 
ye  Galileans,  until  we  meet  together  on  the  occasion  of  my  entry  into  Jerusalem." 
But  how  poor  and  insiguificaut  would  this  meaning  be,  after  the  previous  sayings  ! 
What  bearing  on  the  salvation  of  Israel  had  this  separation  of  a  few  weeks  ?  Besides, 
it  was  not  to  the  Galileans  that  Jesus  was  speaking  it  was  to  the  representatives  of 
the  Pharisaic  party  (vers.  31-34).  In  Matthew's  context,  the  interpretation  of  Wies- 
eler is  still  more  manifestly  excluded.  The  words  which  Jesus  here  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  converted  Israel  in  the  end  of  the  days,  are  taken  from  Ps.  118  :  20.  This 
cry  of  penitent  Istael  will  bring  the  Messiah  down  again,  as  the  sigh  of  Israel, 
humbled  and  waiting  for  consolation,  had  led  Him  to  appear  the  first  time  (Isa.  64  . 
1).  The  announcement  of  the  future  return  of  Jesus,  brought  about  by  the  faith  of 
the  people  in  His  Messiahship  (6  koxon-evoi),  thus  forms  the  counterpart  to  that  of  His 
near  departure,  caused  by  the  national  unbelief  (js^.eioviuai).  How  can  any  one  fail  to 
feel  the  appropriateness,  the  connection,  the  harmony  of  all  the  parts  of  this  admir- 
able answer?  How  palpable,  at  least  in  this  case,  is  the  decisive  value  of  Luke's  short 
introduction  for  the  understanding  of  the  whole  piece  !     The  important  matter  heie, 


CHAi'.    \iv.  :  l-C.  3(ir> 

HS  cvcrywhcu",  is,  above  nil,  tlie  precise  inrlii-sition  of  the  interlocutors  :  "  The  same 
dny  iheia  cnmii  certdin  of  (he  I'hnriKceif,  sixy'wg     .     .     ." 

3.  Jesus  at  a  Feaxi :  11  :  1-24.  The  following  piece  allows  us  to  follow  Jesus  in 
His  domestic  life  and  familiar  conversations.  It  is  connected  with  the  precedinj;  hy 
the  fact  that  it  is  with  a  Pliari.see  Jesus  has  to  do.  "We  are  admitted  to  the  entire 
scene:  1*/.  Theenteiing  into  the  hnise  (vers.  1-6);  2(1.  The  sitting  down  at  table 
(vers.  7-11)  ;  Zd  Jesus  conversing  with  Ills  host  about  the  choice  of  his  guests  (vets. 
12-14  ;  4ih.  His  relating  the  parable  of  the  great  supper,  occasioned  by  the  exclama- 
tion of  one  of  the  guests  (vers.  15-24). 

H'  Itzmann,  of  course,  regards  this  frame  as  being  to  a  large  extent  invented  bj' 
Luke  to  receive  the  detached  sayings  of  Jesus,  which  he  found  placed  side  by  side  in 
A.  This  is  to  sujjpose  in  Luke  as  inueli  genius  as  unscrupulousness  Weizsiicker. 
starling  from  the  idea  that  the  contents  of  this  jiart  are  syslematicallj'^  arranged  and 
frecpiently  altered  to  meet  the  practical  iiueslious  wliich  were  aijitaliug  the  apostolic 
church  at  the  date  of  Luke's  composition,  alleges  that  the  whole  of  this  chapter  re- 
lates to  the  agapiv  of  the  jiiimitive  C'liuich,  and  is  intended  to  describe  those  feasts  a.s 
emboiliments  of  brotherly  love  and  pledges  of  the  heavenly  feasl  ;  and  he  concludes 
Ihciefrom,  as  from  an  established  fact,  the  somewhat  late  origin  of  our  Gospel. 
Where  is  the  least  trace  of  such  an  intention  to  be  found  ? 

Int.  Vers.  1-6.*  To  accept  an  invitation  to  the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  after  the  pre- 
vious scenes,  was  to  do  an  act  at  once  of  coura;je  and  kindness.  Th(;  h.ist  was  one 
of  the  chief  of  his  sect.  There  is  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  hieiarchy  in  thi.s 
party  ;  but  one  would  naturally  be  formed  by  superiority  of  knowledge  and  talent. 
The  interpretation  of  Grolius,  who  takes  tuv  ^apiaatuv  as  in  apposition  to  tuv 
apxovTuv,  is  inadmissible.  The  guests  it  ia  said,  watched  Jesus.  Ver.  2  indi- 
cates the  trap  which  had  been  laid  for  Him  ;  and  l6ov,  behold,  marks  the  time  when 
this  unlooked-for  snare  is  discovered  to  the  eyes  of  Jesus.  The  picture  is  taken  at 
the  moment.  The  word  d-oKpLdeir,  answering  (ver  3),  alludes  to  the  question  im- 
plicitly contained  in  the  sick  man's  presence  :  "  Wilt  thou  heal,  or  wilt  thou  not 
heal  ?"  Jesus  replies  by  a  counter  question,  as  at  6  :  9.  The  silence  of  His  adversaries 
betrays  their  bad  faith.  The  reading  oj  o?,  ass,  in  the  Sinaiticus  and  some  mss.  (ver  5), 
ari.ses  no  doubt  from  the  connection  with  ^ov^,  ox,  or  from  the  similar  saying,  13  : 
15.  The  true  reading  is  vloz,  son  :  "If  thy  son,  or  even  thine  ox  only  .  .  ."  In 
this  word  son,  as  in  the  expression  daughter  of  Abraham  (13  :  16),  there  is  revealed  u 
deep  feeling  of  tenderness  for  the  sufferer.  We  cannot  overlook  a  correspond- 
ence between  the  malady  (dropsy)  and  the  supposed  accident  (falling  into  a  pit). 
Com  p.  13  :  15,  16,  the  correspondence  between  the  halter  with  which  the  ox  is  fas- 
tened to  the  stall,  and  the  bond  by  which  Satan  holds  the  sufferer  in  subjection. 
Here  again  we  find  the  perfect  suit;d)leness,  even  in  the  external  drapery,  which 
characterizes  the  declarations  of  our  Lord.  In  Matt.  12  :  11  this  figure  is  applied  to 
the  curing  of  a  man  who  has  a  withered  hand.  It  is  less  happy,  and  is  certainly 
inexact. 

*  Ver.  3.  !*.  B.  D.  L.omit  ei  before  e^eotlv,  and,  with  several  Mnn.  and  Vss.,  they 
add  J?  ot)  after  (jipanevnat  (T.  K..  Btpaneveiv).  Ver.  5.  6  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  Syr.  Iipi^'-iq"', 
omit  anoKpJjELq  before  Tpo5  avrovi.  A.  B.  E.  G.  H.  M.  S.  U.  V.  T.  A.  A.  130  Mnn. 
Syr.  If"'!,  read  rto?  instead  of  owr.which  ».  K.  L.  X.  n.  some  Mnn.  It"''i.  Vg.  read. 
The  Mss.  are  divided  between  euTzeiHTat  (T.  R.)  and  ■neaetrai  (Alex.)  Ver.  G.  i*.  I>. 
D.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit  avru  after  avTu-oiipifjrjvai, 


36G  COMMENTARY  ON"   ST.  LUKE. 

2d.  Vers.  7-11.*  Here  is  the  point  at  which  the  guests  s^>t  lb'Gi>scVL'*  et  tsihlc- 
The  recommendation  contained  in  thia  passage  is  not,  as  has  c"'"tea  been  thought,  i 
counsel  of  worldly  prudence.  Holtzmann  ascribes  this  meaning,  if  not  to  the  Lord, 
at  least  to  Luke.  But  the  very  term  parable  (ver.  7)  and  the  adage  of  ver.  11  protest 
against  this  supposition,  and  admit  of  our  giving  to  the  saying  no  other  than  a  relig- 
ious sense  and  a  spiritual  application  ;  comp.  18  :  14.  In  a  winning  and  appropriate 
foim  Jesus  gives  the  guests  a  lesson  in  humility,  in  the  deepest  sense  of  the  word. 
Every  one  ought  in  heart  to  take,  and  ever  take  again,  the  last  place  before  God,  or  a? 
St.  Paul  says,  Phil.  2  :  3,  to  regard  others  as  better  than  Idmself.  The  judgment  of 
God  will  perhaps  be  different  ;  but  in  this  way  we  run  no  other  risk  than  that  of 
being  exalted.  'KnEX'^^y  fixing  His  attention  on  that  habitual  way  of  acting  among  the 
Pharisees  (Luke  30  :  46).  Evvald  and  Holtzmann  darken  counsel  about  the  word 
wedding  (ver,  8),  which  does  not  suit  a  simple  repast  like  this.  But  Jesus  in  this  verse 
is  not  speaking  of  the  present  repast,  but  of  a  supposed  feast.  The  proper  reading  is 
avuTveae,  not  avaTTEaai—Wu^  verb  has  no  middle — or  avd-ireaav,  which  has  only  a  few  au- 
thorities, la  the  lowest  place  (ver.  10),  because  in  the  interval  all  the  intermediate  seats 
had  been  occupied.  The  expression,  tJiou  shall  have  glory,  would  be  puerile,  if  it  did 
not  open  up  a  glimpse  of  a  heavenly  reality. 

3fZ.  Ver.  12-14.f  The  company  is  sealed.  Jesus,  then  observing  that  the  guests  in 
general  belonged  to  the  upper  classes  of  society,  addresses  to  His  host  a  lesson  on 
charity,  which  He  clothes,  like  the  preceding,  in  the  graceful  form  of  a  recommen- 
dation of  intelligent  self-interest.  The  iit)txote,  lest  (ver.  12),  carries  a  tone  of  liveli- 
ness and  almost  of  pleasantry  :  "Beware  of  it;  it  is  a  misfortune  to  be  avoided.  For, 
once  thou  shalt  have  received  human  requital,  it  is  all  over  with  divine  recompense." 
Jesus  does  nut  mean  to  forbid  our  entertaining  those  whom  we  love.  He  means 
simply  :  in  view  of  the  life  to  come,  thou  canst  do  better  still.  'Avdnrjpoi.  those  who 
are  deprived  of  some  one  sense  or  limb,  most  frequently  the  blind  or  the  lame  ;  here, 
where  those  two  categories  are  specially  mentioned,  the  maimed  in  general.  In  it- 
self, the  expression  resurrection  of  the  just,  ver.  14,  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  dis- 
tinction between  two  resurrections,  the  one  of  the  just  exclusively,  the  other  general  ; 
it  might  signify  merely,  when  the  just  shall  rise  at  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  But  as  Luke  20  :  35  evidently  proves  that  this  distinction  was  in  the  mind 
of  Jesus,:}:  it  is  natural  to  explain  the  term  from  this  point  of  view  (comp.  1  Cor.  15  : 
23  ;  1  Thcss.  4  :  16  ;  Pliil.  3  :  11  ;  Rev.  20.) 

Atli.  Vers.  15-24.  The  conversation  which  follows  belongs  to  a  later  time  in  the 
feast.  Jesus  had  been  depicting  the  jusi  seated  at  the  Messiah's  banquet,  and  receiv- 
ing a  superabundant  equivalent  for  the  least  works  of  love  which  they  have  performed 
here  below.  This  saying  awakes  in  the  heart  of  one  of  the  guests  a  sweet  anticipa- 
tion of  heavenly  joys  ;  or  perhaps  he  seizes  it  as  an  occasion  for  laying  a  snare  for 
Jesus,  and  leading  Him  to  utter  some  heresy  on  the  subject.  The  severe  tendency 
of  the  following  parable  might  favor  this  second  interpretation.  In  any  case,  the 
enumeration  of  ver.  21  (comp,  ver.  13)  proves  the  close  connection  between  those  two 
parts  of  the  conversation. 

*  Ver.  10.  ».  B.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.,  epei  instead  of  etn-ij.  m.  A.  B.  L.  X.  12  Mun. 
Syr.  add  Trm'Tuv  before  rwi'  nvvavaKei/iEvuv. 

}  Ver.  14.  ii.  5  Mnn.  It*'''''..  6c  instead  of  yap  after  avTaTTothBr/rysTat. 

X  That  this  was  in  the  mind  of  Jesu';  is  ni)t  evident  to  interpreters  generally.  In 
this,  and  in  one  or  two  oilier  passages,  the  author  is  less  clear  than  is  usual  with  him 
legarding  the  events  of  the  future. — J.  H. 


CHAP.  XIV.  :  7-;i4.  3G7 

Vers.  15-20.*— 'Apro:'  <pnyeaOat  (fut.  of  (pnyu)  merely  signifies,  to  be  admitted  to  the 
heavenly  feast.  There  is  noallusioa  in  the  expression  to  the  excellence  of  the  meats 
which  shall  form  this  repast  (ver.  1).  Jesus  replies,  "  Yes,  blessed  ;  and  therefore 
bewiire  of  rejecting  I  he  blessedness  at  the  very  moment  when  thou  art  extolling  its 
gretiluess. "  Sucli  is  the  application  of  the  following  parable.  Tlie  word  ito?./ovS, 
siguiticant  of  numerous  guests,  ver.  16,  is  sufficiently  justified  when  api)lied  to  the 
Jewish  people  alone  ;  for  this  invitation  includes  all  divine  ailvances,  at  all  periods 
of  Ihe  theocracy.  The  last  call  given  to  the  guests  (ver.  17)  relates  to  (he  ministties 
of  John  llie  Baptist  and  of  Jesus  Himself.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  it  was  usual  to 
send  a  message  at  the  last  mnment ;  but  the  hour  was  come,  and  nobody  appeared. 
Tills  toucli  brings  out  the  ill-will  of  those  invited  ;  there  was  no  i)0ssibilify  of  their 
forgetting.  Tlie  expression,  all  things  are  ready,  describes  the  glorious  freeness  of 
salvation.  Tlie  excuses  put  forth  l)y  the  invited,  vers.  18-20,  are  not  in  earnest  ;  for, 
warned  as  they  were  long  befoiehand,  they  cuuld  have  chosen  anutlier  day  for  their 
different  occupations.  The  choice  made,  which  is  at  the  bottom  of  those  refusals, 
betrays  itself  in  the  uniformity  of  their  answers.  It  is  like  a  refrain  {a-rcu  juiug,  under- 
stand :  <^6>v;/5  or  yvu^rji,  ver.  18).  They  have  passed  the  word  to  one  another.  The 
true  reason  is  evidently  tlie  antipathy  which  they  feel  to  him  who  invites  them  ;  comp. 
John  15  :  24  :  "  They  have  hated  both  me  and  my  Father." 

Vers.  21-24.f  In  the  report  which  the  servant  gives  of  his  mission,  we  may  hear, 
as  Stier  so  well  observes,  the  echo  of  the  sorrowful  lamentations  uttered  by  Jesus  over 
the  hardening  of  the  Jews  during  His  long  nights  of  prayer.  The  anger  of  the  mas- 
ter {upyicOek)  is  the  retaliation  for  the  hatred  which  he  discovers  at  the  bottom  of 
their  refusals.  The  first  .supplementary  invitation  which  he  commissions  his  servant 
to  give,  represents  the  appeal  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  lowest  classes  of  Jewish 
society,  those  who  are  called,  15  :  1,  publicans  and  sinners.  nXaTeiai,  the  larger 
streets,  which  widen  out  into  squares.  'Pv/ini,  the  small  cross  streets.  There  is  no 
going  out  yet  from  the  city.  The  second  supplementary  invitation  (vers.  23  and  23) 
represents  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  ;  for  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  are  no  longer 
inhabitants  of  the  city.  The  love  of  God  is  great :  it  requires  a  multitude  of  guests  ; 
it  will  not  have  a  seat  left  empty.  The  number  of  the  elect  is,  as  it  were,  determined 
beforehand  by  the  riches  of  divine  glory,  which  cannot  find  a  complete  reflection 
without  a  certain  number  of  human  beings.  The  invitation  will  therefore  be  con- 
tinued, and  consequently  the  history  of  our  race  prolonged,  until  that  number  be 
reached.  Thus  the  divine  decree  is  reconciled  with  human  liberty.  In  comparison 
with  the  number  called,  there  are  undoubtedly  few  saved  through  the  fault  of  the 
former  ;  b)it  nevertheless,  speaking  absolutely,  there  are  very  many  saved,  ^payfinl, 
the  hedges  which  enclo.se  properties,  and  beneath  which  vagrants  squat.  The  phrase, 
compel  them  to  come  in,  applies  to  people  who  would  like  to  enter,  but  are  yet  kept 
back  by  a  false  timidity.  The  servant  is  to  push  them,  in  a  manner,  into  the  house 
in  »j',ite  of  their  scruples.  The  object,  therefore,  is  not  to  extinguish  their  liberty,  but 
rather  to  restore  them  to  it.     For  they  would  ;  but  they  dare  not.     Asjer.  21  is  the 

*  Ver.  15.  The  ]Mnn.  are  divided  between  o?  (T.  R.)  and  oijtiS  (Alex.)  before 
^ytTiii.  Instead  of  aproi',  some  Mjj.  (Bvz.)  130  ]\Inn.  Syr"=°^,  apiarov.  Ver.  K!.  ». 
B.  R.  Syr'=''^,  fToiet  instead  of  eTroiT/cev.  Ver.  17.  »*  B.  L.  K.  It"'"!,  omit  Travra 
after  e-^Ttv  (or  sintv) 

+  Ver.  21.  9  Mjj.  12  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  e/ceuos  after  6ov/.o<;.  Ver.  22.  J*.  B.  D.  L. 
R.  Sy^*^"^,  0  instead  of  (j5  before  e-tra^as. 


3G8  COilMEJJTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

text  of  the  first  part  of  Acts  (1  :  12,  conversion  of  the  Jews),  vers.  23  and  23  are  the 
text  of  the  second  (13  to  the  end,  conversion  of  the  Gentiles),  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
present  econum}'.  Weizsiicker  accuses  Luke  of  haviug  added  to  the  original  parable 
this  distinction  between  two  new  invitations,  and  that  in  favor  of  Paul's  mission  to 
the  Gentiles.  If  this  saying  were  the  only  one  which  the  evangelists  put  into  the 
lUDUth  of  Jesus  regarding  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  this  suspicion  would  be  conceiv- 
able. But  does  not  the  passage  13  :  28-30  already  express  this  idea?  and  is  not  this 
sayiug  found  in  Matthew  as  well  as  in  Luke  ?  Comp.  also  Matt.  24  :  14  ;  John 
10  :  16.  According  to  several  commentators,  ver.  24  does  not  belong  to  the  parable  ; 
it  is  the  application  of  it  addressed  by  Jesus  to  all  the  guests  ("  1  say  unto  you"). 
But  the  subject  of  the  verb,  1  say,]S  evidently  still  the  host  of  the  parable  ;  the  pron. 
you  designates  the  persons  gathered  round  him  at  the  time  when  he  gives  this  order. 
Only  the  Solemnity  with  which  Jesus  undoubtedly  passed  His  eyes  over  the  whole 
assembly,  while  putting  this  terrible  threat  into  the  mouth  of  the  master  in  the  par- 
able, made  ihem  feel  that  at  that  very  moment  the  scene  described  was  actually  pass- 
ing between  Him  and  them. 

The  parable  of  the  great  feast  related  Matt.  22  :  1-14  has  great  resemblances  to 
this  ;  but  it  differs  from  it  as  remarkably.  More  generalized  in  the  outset,  it  becomes 
toward  the  end  more  detailed,  and  takes  even  a  somewhat  complex  character.  It  may 
be,  as  Bleek  thinks,  a  combination  of  iwo  parables  originally  distinct.  This  seems  to 
be  proved  by  certain  touches,  such  as  the  royal  dignity  of  the  host,  the  destruction 
by  his  armies  of  the  city  inhabited  by  those  first  invited,  and  then  everytlnng  relating 
to  the  man  who  had  come  in  without  a  wedding  garment.  Nothing,  on  the  contrary, 
could  be  more  simple  and  complete  than  the  delineation  of  Luke. 

4.  A  Warning  ac/aimt  hasty  Professions  ;  14  :  25-35.  The  journey  resumes  its 
course  ;  great  crowds  follow  Jesus.  There  is  consequently  an  attraction  to  His  side. 
This  appears  in  the  plurals  oxaoi,  multitudes,  the  adjective  tto/j.ol,  and  the  imperfect 
of  duration  awerropevovro,  were  accompanying  Rim.  This  brief  introduction,  as  in 
similar  cases,  gives  the  key  to  the  following  discourse,  which  embraces  :  Is^.  A  warn- 
ing (vers.  26  and  27)  ;  Id.  Two  parables  (vers.  28-32)  ,  Zd.  A  conclusion,  clothed  in 
a  new  figure  (vers.  83-35). 

Vers.  25-27.*  "  And  there  went  great  multitudes  with  Him  ;  and  He  turned,  and 
said  unto  them,  26.  If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and 
wife,  and  children,  and  i)rethren,  and  sisters,  3'ea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be 
my  disciple.  27.  And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come  after  mc,  can- 
not be  my  disciple. "  Seeing  those  crowds  Jesus  is  aware  that  between  Him  and 
them  there  is  a  misunderstanding.  The  Gospel,  rightly  apprehentied,  will  not  be  the 
concern  of  the  multitude.  He  lifts  His  voice  to  reveal  this  false  situation  :  You  are 
going  up  with  me  to  Jerusalem,  as  if  you  were  repairing  to  a  feast.  But  do  you  know 
^what  it  is  for  a  man  to  join  himself  to  my  companj^  ?  It  is  to  abandon  what  is  dearest 
and  most  vital  (ver.  26).  and  to  accept  what  is  most  painful — the  cross  (ver.  27). 
Coming  to  me  (ver.  26)  denotes  outward  attachment  to  Jesus  ;  heing  my  disciple,  at  the 
end  of  the  verse,  actual  dependence  on  His  person  and  spirit.  That  the  former  may 
be  changed  into  the  latter,  and  that  the  bond  between  Jesus  and  the  professor  may  be 
durable,  there  must  be  effected  in  him  a  painful  breach  with  everything  which  is 

*  Ver.  27.  This  verse  is  omitted  by  M.  R.  V.  and  very  many  Mnu.  (by  liomoioteleU" 
ton).     J*.  B.  L.  Cop.  omit  kql  before  oa-ii. 


(  iiAi'.    \iv.  :  '.•J-oO.  309 

naturally  dear  to  him.  The  word  hate  in  this  passage  is  often  interpreted  in  the  sense 
uf  loving  less.  Uleek  quotes  examples,  which  are  not  without  force.  Thus,  Gen. 
29  :  30,  31.  It  is  also  the  meaning  of  !Malthew's  ])aiaphrase  (10  :  87),  6  (i>i7S.<v  . 
i-ip  ifif.  Yet  it  is  simpler  to  keep  the  natuial  sense  of  tlie  word  hate,  if  it  offers  an 
admissible  appliratiou.  And  this  we  lind  when  we  admit  that  Jesus  is  here  re"-nrd- 
ing  the  well-beloved  ones  whoni  He  (numerates  as  representatives  of  our  natural  life, 
that  life,  strictly  and  radically  selfish,  which  separates  us  from  God.  Henee  He 
adds  :  Tea,  and  his  oirnlife  uho  ;  this  word  forms  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  the 
woul  hate.  At  bottom,  our  oicn  life  is  the  only  thing  to  be  hated.  Everythinsi  else 
is  to  be  hated  only  in  so  far  as  it  partakes  of  this  principle  of  sin  and  death.  Accord- 
ing to  Deul.  21  :  10-21,  when  a  man  showed  himself  determinedly  vicious  or  impious, 
/lis  father  and  mother  were  to  be  the  first  to  take  up  stones  to  stone  him.  Jesus  in 
this  place  only  spiritualizes  this  precept.  The  words:  Yea,  and  his  own  life  aUo, 
thus  remove  from  this  hatred  every  notion  of  sin,  and  allow  us  to  see  in  it  nothing 
but  an  aversion  of  a  purely  moral  kind. 

There  are  not  only  affections  to  be  sacrificed,  bonds  to  be  broken  ;  there  are  suffer- 
ings to  be  undergone  in  the  following  of  Jesus.  The  emblem  of  these  positive  evils 
is  the  cros-i,  that  punishment  the  most  humiliating  and  painful  of  all,  which  had  been 
introduced  into  Israel  since  the  Roman  subjugation.  Without  supplying  an  ovk  be- 
fore fp,vf "'.  "^^'c  might  translate  :  "  Whosoever  doth  not  bear  .  .  .  and  who 
nevertheless  eomelh  after  me  .  .  ."  But  this  interpretation  is  far  from  natural 
Those  well-disposed  crowds  who  were  following  Jesus  without  real  conversion  had 
never  imagined  anything  like  this.  Jesus  sets  before  their  very  e^'es  these  two  indis- 
pensable conditions  of  true  faith  b}--  two  parables  (ver.  28-32). 

Vers.  28-30.*  The  Improvident  Builder.  Building  here  is  the  image  of  the  Christian 
life,  regarded  in  its  positive  asiiect  :  the  foundation  and  development  of  the  work  of 
God  in  the  heart  and  life  of  the  believer.  The  tower,  a  lofty  edifice  which  strikes 
the  eye  from  afar,  represents  a  mode  of  living  distinguished  from  the  common,  and 
attracting  geueial  attention.  Xew  professors  often  regard  with  complacency  what 
distinguishes  them  outwardly  fr.nn  ll.e  world.  But  building  costs  something  ;  and 
the  work  once  begun  must  be  finished,  under  penalty  of  being  exposed  to  public  ridi- 
cule. One  should  therefore  have  first  made  his  estimates,  and  accepted  the  inroad  upon 
his  capital  which  will  result  from  such  an  undertaking.  His  capital  is  his  own  life, 
which  he  is  called  to  spend,  and  to  spend  wholly  in  the  service  of  his  sanctificatiou. 
The  work  of  God  is  not  seriously  pursued,  unless  a  man  is  daily  sacrificing  some  part 
of  that  which  constitutes  the  natural  fortune  of  the  human  heart,  particularly  the 
affections,  which  are  so  deep,  referred  to,  ver.  2G.  Before,  therefore,  any  one  puts 
himself  forward  as  a  professor,  it  is  all  important  that  he  should  have  calculated  this 
future  expenditure,  and  thoroughly  made  up  his  mind  not  to  recoil  from  any  of  those 
sacrifices  which  fidelity  will  entail.  Sittinrj  down  and  counting  arc  emblems  of  the  seri-' 
ous  acts  of  recollection  and  meditation  which  should  precede  a  true  jirofession.  This 
was  precisely  what  Jesus  had  done  in  the  wilderness.  But  what  happens  when  this 
condition  is  neglected  V  After  having  energetically  pronouaced  himself,  the  new  pro- 
fessor recoils  step  by  step  from  the  cocseiiuences  of  the  position  which  he  has  taken 
up.     lie  stops  short  in  the  sacrifice  of  his  natural  life  ;  and  this  inconsistency  pro- 

*  Ver.  28.  B.  D.  L.  K.  It*"-!,  omit  rn,  and  the  same  with  13  other  Mjj.  50  Mnn. 
read  el;  instead  of  n-poS  before  (nrafjTia/xoi'.  T.  R.,  ra  npoi  airapTiafxav,  with  F.  V.  X, 
n.  many  Mnn. 


3 


370  COMilENTAKY    01s    ST.   LUKE. 

vokes  the  contempt  and  ridicule  of  the  world,  which  soon  discovers  that  he  who  had 
sepal  ated  himself  from  it  with  so  much  parade,  is  after  all  but  oue  of  iis  owu.  JN'oili- 
iui;  injures  the  gospel  like  those  relapses,  the  ordinar}'  results  of  hasty  profession. 

Vers.  31,  32.*  Tlie  Iniprucident  Warrior.     Here  we  have  an  emblem  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  regarded  ou  its  negauve  or  polemical  side.     The  Christian  is  a  king,  but  a 
king  engaged  iu  a  struggle,  and  a  struggle  with  an  enemy  materially  stronger  than 
himself.     Therefore,  before  defying  him  with  a  declaration  of  war  by  the  open  pro- 
fession of  the  gospel,   a  man  must  have  taken  counsel  with   himself,  and  become 
a.ssured  that  he  is  willing  to  accept  the  extreme  consequences  of  this  position,  even 
to  the  giving  up  of  his  life  if  demanded  ;  this  condition  is  expressed  ver.  27      Would 
not  a  little  nation  like  the  Swiss  bring  down  ridicule  on  itself  by  declaring  war  with 
France,  if  it  were  not  determined  to  die  nobl}^  on  the  Held  of   battle?     Would  not 
Luther  have  acted  like  a  fool  wheu  he  affixed  his  theses  to  the  church  door,  or  burned 
the  Papal  bull,  had  he  not  first  made  the  sacrifice  of  his  life  in  the  inner  court  of  his 
heart  ?    It  is  heroical  to  engage  in  a  struggle  for  a  just  and  holy  cause,  but  on  one 
condition  :  that  is,  that  we  have  accepted  death  beioiehaud  as  the  end  of  the  way  ; 
otherwise  this  declaration  of  war  is  nothing  but  rodomontade.     The  words  :  whetlier 
lie  is  able,  have  a  slight  touch  of  irony  ;  able  to  conquer,  and,  as  under  such  conditions 
that  is  impossible,  to  die  in  the  unequal  struggle.     Ver.  33  has  been  regarded  either 
as  a  call  to  us  to  lake  account  of  our  weakness,  that  we  may  ask  the  help  of  God 
<OIshausen),  or  a  summons  promptly  to  seek  reconciliation  with  God  (Gerlach).     Both 
interpretations  are  untenable,  because  the  hostile  king  challenged  by  the  declaraiioa 
of  war  is  not  God,  Ijut  the  prince  of  this  world.     It  is  therefore  much  rather  a  warn- 
ing which  .lesus  gives  to  those  who  profess  discipleship,  but  who  have  not  decided  to 
risk  everything,  to  make  their  submission  as  early  as  possible  to   the  world  and  its 
prince.     Better  avoid  celebrating  a  Palm-day  than  end  after  such  a  demonstration 
with  a  Good  Friday  !     Rather  remain  an  honorable  man,  unknown  religiously,  than  — .| 
become  what  is  sadder  in  the  world,  an  inconsistent  Christian.     A  warning,  therefore, 
to  those  who  formed  tte  attendants  of  Jesus,  to  make  their  peace  speedily  with  the 
Bauhedrim,  if  they  are  not  resolved  to  follow  their  new  Master  to  the  cross  !    .Jesus 
flrew  this  precept  also  from   His  own  experience.     He  had  made  his  reckoning  in 
the  wilderness  with  the  prince  of  this  world,  and  with  life,  before  beginning  His  work 
publicly.     Gess  rightly  says  :  "  Those  two  parables  show  with  what  seriousness  .Jesus 
had  Himself  prepared  for  death."  — i 

Vers.  33-35.  f  The  Application  of  tJiose  iwo  ParrMes,  vith  anew  Figure  confirming 
li!.—"  So  likewise,  whosoever  he  be  of  you  that  forsaketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he 
cannot  be  my  disciple.  34.  Salt  is  good  :  hut  if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savor,  where- 
with shall  it  be  seasoned  ?  35.  It  is  neither  fit  for  the  land,  nor  yet  for  the  dunghill  ; 
but  men  cast  it  out.  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.  Here  is  the  summing 
up  of  the  warning  which  was  intended  to  calm  the  unreflecting  enthusiasm  of  those 
multitudes.  The  expression  :  forsaketh  all  that  hehath^  natural  life,  as  well  as  all  the 
affections  and  all  the  goods  fitted  to  satisfy  it,  sums  up  the  two  conditions  indicated 
vers.  26  (the  giving  up  of  enjoyment)  and  27  (the  acceptance  of  the  cross).  Salt  (ver. 
34)  corrects  the  tastelessness  of  certain  substances,  and  preserves  others  from  corrup- 

*  Ver.  31.  i*.  B.  ltp'«''q»e,  /?ov?.fw^frnnnstead  ol  ffov'kEveTp.i.  The  Mss.  are  divided 
between  anavrrinai  (T    R.)  and  VTravrijaaL  (Alex.). 

t  Ver.  34.  i».  B.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  add  ovv  after  Kalm.  ^.  B.  D.  L.  X.  8  Mna. 
Itpieriqne   ^^v  6e  KUL  instcad  of  eav  6e. 


CHAP.  xiy.  :  31-35.  371 

tioa  ;  the  marvellous  efficacy  of  this  agent  on  nuileiials  subjected  to  its  quickening 
eucigy  is  a  guud  liiiug,  and  evtu  good  to  observe  (iia>^6t).  In  this  twofold  relation  it 
is  ihe  emblem  of  the  sharp  aud  austere  savor  of  holiness,  of  the  action  of  the  gospel 
uu  me  ualuial  life,  the  insipidity  and  frivolity  of  which  are  corrected  by  the  Divine 
Spiiit.  JS'o  more  beautiful  s^jectacle  in  the  moral  world  than  this  action  of  the  gos- 
pel through  tue  iustuuuentality  of  the  consistent  Christian  on  the  society  around  him. 
But  it  the  Christian  hunseli  by  his  unfaithfulness  destroys  this  holy  power,  no  means 
wdl  rest,  re  to  him  the  savor  which  it  was  his  mission  to  impart  to  the  world. 
'AfjTvOr/atTai  might  be  taken  impersonally  :  "  If  there  is  no  more  salt,  wherewith  shall 
men  salt  (things)  ?"  But  Jesus  is  not  heie  describing '.he  evil  results  of  Christian 
uulaiihfuluess  to  the  world  or  the  gospel  ;  it  is  the  professor  himself  who  is  con- 
ceiued  (ver.  oo  :  men  cad  it  out).  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  therefore,  u^as,  salt 
itself;  comp.  Mark  D  :  50  :  kv  tIvl  aprvaere  avru  ;  "  wherewMth  will  ye  season  it?" 
Salt  which  has  become  savorless  is  111  for  nothing  ;  it  cannot  serve  the  soil  as  earth, 
nor  pastuie  as  dung.  It  is  only  good  to  be  cud  out,  says  Luke  ;  trodden  vnderfoot  of 
men,  says  !Matl.  5  :  13.  Salt  was  sometimes  used  to  cover  slippery  ways  (Erub.  f. 
104.  1  :  i>pargunt  salem  in  cliw  ne  nuteni  Q)edes).  A  reserved  attitude  toward  the 
gospel  is  therefore  a  less  critical  position  than  an  open  profession  followed  by  declen- 
sion. In  the  moral  as  in  the  physical  world,  without  previous  heating  there  is  no 
deadly  chill.  Jesus  seems  to  say  that  the  life  of  natuie  may  have  its  usefuluc«is  in 
the  kingdom  of  God,  either  in  tlie  form  of  mundane  (laud)  leVpectabilitj',  or  even  as 
a  life  ci)mi)!etely  coriupled  and  depraved  (dung).  In  the  first  case,  indeed,  it  is  the 
soil  wherein  the  geim  of  the  higher  life  may  be  sown  ;  and  in  the  second,  it  maj'  at 
least  call  forth  a  moral  reaction  among  those  who  feel  indignation  or  dis^gust  at  the 
evil,  and  drive  them  to  seek  life  from  on  high  ;  while  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  Chris- 
tian disgusts  men  with  the  gospel  itself.  The  expression  :  cast  out  (give  over  to  per- 
dition, John  15  :  G),  forms  the  transition  to  the  final  call  :  He  that  hath  ears     .     .     . 

This  discourse  is  the  basis  of  the  famous  passage,  Heb.  6  :  4-8.  The  commenta- 
tors wh,)  have  applied  it  to  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  have  not  sutticientiy  considei-ed 
the  coute.xt,  and  especially  the  introduction,  ver.  25,  which,  notwithstanding  IIollz- 
mann's  contemptuous  treatment,  is,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  key  of  the  whole  piece. 
Matthew  places  the  apoiihthesrm,  vers.  34,  35,  in  that  passage  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  where  the  grandeur  of  ^he  Christian  calling  is  described  (5  :  13-16).  Perhaps 
he  was  l^d  to  put  "it  theie  by  the  analosy  of  the  saying  to  the  immediately  following 
one  :  "  Ye  are  tiie  light  of  the  world."  INIark  placs  it,  like  Luke,  toward  the  end 
of  the  r.aiileau  ministrv  (9  :  50)  ;  and  such  a  warning  is  belter  explained  at  a  more 
adviineed  ])criod.  Be-si'des,  like  so  many  other  general  maxims,  it  may  perfectly  well 
have  been  uttered  twice. 

5.  The  Parables  of  Grace  :  chap.  15.  This  piece  contains  :  1st.  A  historical  intro- 
duction (vers.  1  and  2)  ;  2d.  A  pair  of  parables,  like  that  of  the  previous  chapter 
(vers.  3-10)  ;  and  M.  A  great  paral)le,  which  forms  the  summing  up  and  climax  of 
the  two  pieceding  (vers.  11-32).  The  relation  is  like  that  between  the  three  allegories, 
John  10  :  1-18. 

1st.  Vers.  1  and  2.*  The  Introduction.— U  Weizsilker  had  sufficiently  weighed  the 
bearing  of  the  analytical  from  ?)aav  eyyiCovres,  they  were  drawim/  near,  which  denotes 
a  state  of  things  more  or  less  permanent,  he  would  not  have  accused  Luke  (p.  139)  of 
transforming  ii'to  the  tvent  of  ?  particular  time  a  very  common  situation  in  the  lif-^ 

*  V.'-.  2.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  add  rf  after  oi. 


372  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

cf  Jesus.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  this  habitual  state  of  thinifs  that  the  point  of  time  (aor. 
sIke,  ver.  3)  is  marked  off  when  Jesus  related  the  following  parables.  Holtzmann 
finds  nothing  in  this  introduction  but  an  invention  of  Lulce  himself..  In  any  case, 
Luke  places  us  once  more,  by  this  short  historical  introduction,  at  the  point  of 
view  for  understanding  the  wlioie  of  tlie  foUowmg  discourse.  What  drew  those 
sinners  to  Jesus  was  llieir  finding  in  Him  not  that  righteousness,  full  of  pride  and 
contempt,  with  which  the  Pharisees  assailed  them,  but  a  holiness  which  was 
associated  with  the  tenderest  luve.  The  publicans  and  sinners  had  broken  with 
Levitical  purity  and  Israelitish  respectability  ;  the  former  by  their  business,  the 
otliers  by  their  life.  They  were  outlaws  in  Israel.  But  were  they  tiually  lost  on  that 
account  ?  Undoubtedly,  the  normal  way  of  entering  into  union  with  God  would  liaro 
been  through  fidelity  to  tlie  theocracy  ;  but  tlie  coming  of  the  Saviour  opened  auotlier  - 
to  those  who,  by  their  guilt,  had  shut  the  first  against  them.  And  that  Avas  exactly 
the  thing  which  had  exasperated  the  zealots  of  Levitical  observances.  Rather  than 
recognize  in  .lesus  one  who  had  uudei stood  the  merciful  purpose  of  God,  they  pre- 
ferred to  explain  the  compassionate  welcome  which  He  gave  to  sinners  by  His  secret 
sympathy  with  sin.  YlpajSi^x^'^'^'^'-f  ^  receiee  with  welcome,  refers  to  kindly  relations 
in  '"-eneral  :  avueaOteiv,  to  eat  icith,  to  the  decisive  act  in  the  manners  of  that  time  by 
which  lie  did  nut  fear  to  seal  this  connection. 

2d.  Vers.  u-lO.  The  two  parables  of  the  loi>t  sheep  and  of  the  lost  drachma,  as  such 
pairs  of  parables  always  do,  present  the  same  idea,  lait  in  two  different  aspects.  The 
idea  common  to  both  is  the  solicitude  of  God  for  sinners  ;  the  difference  is,  that  in 
the  first  instance  this  solicitude  arises  from  the  compassion  with  ^k\i\<A\  their  misery 
inspires  Him,  in  the  second  from  the  value  which  He  attaches  to  their  persons.  The 
two  descriptions  are  intended  to  show  that  the  conduct  of  Jesus  toward  those  despi.sed 
beings  corresponds  in  all  respects  to  that  compassionate  solicitude,  and  so  to  justify 
tlie  instrument  of  divine  love.  If  God  cannot  be  accused  of  secret  sympathy  with 
sin,  how  could  .lesus  possibly  be  so  when  carrying  His  purpose  into  execution  ? 

Vers.  3-7.*  The  Lost  Sheep.  God  seeks  .sinners  liecause  the  sinner  is  a  miserable 
being  deserving  pity  :  such  is  the  meaning  of  this  description.  The  parable  is  put 
in  the  form  of  a  question.  In  point  uf  fact,  it  is  at  once  an  argumentum  ad  hominem 
and  an  argument  a  fortiori :  "  What  do  ye  yourselves  in  such  a  case  ?  And  besides, 
the  case  is  like  :  a  sheep,  a  man  1"  Which  of  you?  "  There  is  not  a  single  one  of 
yon  who  accuse  me  here  who  does  not  act  exactly  like  me  in  similar  circumstances." 
'A^OpuTOf,  vian,  is  taclily  contrasted  with  God  (ver.  7).  The  hundred  sheep  represent 
the  lotalilv  of  the  theocratic  people  ;  the  lost  sheep,  that  portion  of  the  people  which 
has  broken  with  legal  ordinances,  and  so  lives  under  the  impulse  of  its  own  passions  ; 
the  ninety  and  7iine,  the  majority  which  has  remained  outwardly  faithful  to  the  law. 
'Ep7jui)S,  which  we  translate  loilderness  simply  denotes  in  the  East  uncultivated  plains, 
pasturage,  in  opposition  to  tilled  fields.  It  is  the  natural  resort  of  sheep,  but  without 
the  notion  of  danger  and  barrenness  which  we  connect  with  the  idea  of  wilderness. 
This  place  where  the  tlock  feeds  represents  the  more  or  less  normal  state  of  the  faith- 
ful Jews,  in  which  the  soul  is  kept  near  to  God  under  the  shelter  of  commandments 
and  worship.  The  shejjherd  leaves  them  there  :  there  hiive  only  to  walk  faithfully  jn 
the  way  marked  out  for  them  ;  they  will  be  infallibly  led  on  to  a  higher  state  (,Joiin 
3  :  21,  5  :  46,  6  :  45,  7  :  17).     While  waiting,  their  mural  position  is  safe  enough  to 

*  Ver.  4.  G  Mji.  several  Man.  add  ov  after  £wf. 


CHAT.   XV.  :  1-7.  373 

allow  the  Saviour  to  consecrate  Ilimsrlf  more  speciiilly  to  the  souls  of  those  who, 
having  broken  witli  tlie  covenant  and  its  means  of  grace,  are  exposed  to  the  most  im- 
minent dangers.  Tlie  anxiety  of  the  shepherd  to  recover  a  slrayeil  sheep  has  more 
than  personal  inteiest  for  its  motive.  One  sheep  in  a  hundred  is  a  loss  of  too  small 
imp.)rlance.  and  in  any  case  out  of  proportion  to  the  pains  which  he  takes.  The 
motive  wliich  animates  him  is  compassion  Is  llierc.  in  reality,  a  creature  in  the  ani- 
mal woild  more  to  be  pitied  than  a  strayed  sheep  ?  It  is  destitute  both  of  the  instinct 
necessary  to  find  its  way,  and  of  every  weapon  of  self-defence.  It  is  a  prey  to  any 
beast  which  may  meet  it  ;  it  deserves,  as  no  other  heiD'j;  in  nature,  the  name  of  lost. 
The  compassion  of  the  shepherd  appears:  1.  In  his  preseverance  :  he  seeks  it  w«^jZ 
(ver.  4)  ;  2.  In  his  tender  care  :  he  Inyeth  it  on  his  shoulders ;  3.  InXhajoy  with  which 
he  takes  his  burden  {e-i7i6r}aiv  ;^o/p(ji),  u  joy  such  that  he  wishes  to  share  it  with 
those  who  surround  him,  and  that  he  reckons  on  receiving  their  congratulations 
(ver.  6). 

Every  touch  in  this  exquisite  picture  finds  its  application  by  means  of  the  situation 
desciibed,  vers.  1  and  2.  The  search  for  the  sheep  corresponds  witli  the  act  which 
the  Pharii^ees  blamed  :  He  rccciveth  sinners,  and  eateth  with  them  ;  the  finding,  to  that 
moment  of  unspeakable  joy,  when  Jesus  sees  one  of  those  lost  souls  returning  to 
God  ;  the  tenderness  with  which  tlie  shepherd  carries  his  sheep,  to  the  care  which 
divine  grace  will  henceforth  take  of  the  sou!  tliiis  recovered  for  God  ;  the  joy  of  the 
shepherd,  to  that  which  Jesus,  that  wliich  God  Himself,  feels  in  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners ;  the  congratulations  of  friends  and  neighbors,  to  the  thanksgivings  and  praises 
of  glorified  men  and  angels.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  shepherd  does  not  carry 
back  the  sheep  to  the  pasture,  but  to  his  own  dwelling.  By  this  touch,  Jesus  un- 
doubtedly gives  us  to  uiuleistand,  that  the  sinners  whom  He  has  come  to  save  are 
transported  by  Him  into  an  order  of  things  superior  to  that  of  the  theocracy  to  which 
they  formerly  belonged — into  the  communion  of  heaven  represented  by  the  shepherd's 
bouse  (ver.  7). 

Ver.  7  contains  the  application  of  the  description,  or  more  exactl}',  the  conclusion 
of  the  argument :  "  If  jiity  leuils  you  to  show  such  tenderness  to  a  sheep,  am  I  wrong 
in  showing  it  to  lost  souls?  I  say  unto  you,  that  what  I  feel  and  do  is  what  God 
Himself  feels  and  wishes  ;  and  what  offends  you  here  below  on  the  earth  is  what 
causes  rejoicing  in  the  heavens.  It  is  for  you  to  judge  from  this  contrast,  whether, 
■while  you  have  no  need  perhaps  to  change  your  life,  you  do  not  need  a  change  of 
heart  !"  The  words  :  there  shallbe  more  joy,  are  frccjuenlly  explained  anthropopathi- 
cally  ;  the  recovery  of  a  lost  object  gives  us  in  the  first  moment  a  livelier  J03'  than 
anything  which  we  i)0ssess  without  previous  loss.  If  we  found  this  feature  in  the 
parable,  the  explanation  mighl  be  discussed.  But  it  meets  us  in  the  application,  and 
we  cannot  see  how  such  a  sentiment  could  be  absolutely  ascril)ed  to  God.  We  liave 
just  seen  that  the  state  of  the  recovered  sinner  is  really  superior  to  that  of  the  believ- 
ing Israelite.  The  latter,  without  having  to  charge  himself  with  gross  disorders 
(uernvoElv,  to  repent,  in  the  sense  of  those  to  whom  Jesus  is  .speaking),  has  never-- 
theless  one  decisive  step  more  to  lake,  in  order  that  his  salvation  may  be  con- 
summated, and  that  God  may  rejoice  fully  on  his  account  ;  that  is,  to  recognize  his 
inward  sin.  to  embrace  the  Saviour,  and  to  be  changed  in  heart.  Till  then  his  regu- 
lated walk  within  the  bosom  of  the  ancient  covenant  is  only  provisional,  like  the 
whnle  of  that  covenant  itself.  It  ma}'  easily  happen  that,  like  the  Pharisees, 
such  a  man  should  end  by  reiectin<j:  real  salvation,  and  su  perishing;.     How  should 


374  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.   LUKE, 

heaven  rejoice  over  a  state  so  imperfect,  with  a  joy  like  that  which  is  awakened 
among  its  inhabitants  by  the  siglit  of  a  sinner  really  saved  ?  It  is  evident  that  in  this 
saying  we  must  take  the  word  just  (as  well  as  the  word  repent)  in  the  sense  given  to 
it  by  the  interlocutors  of  Jesus,  that  relative  meaning  which  we  have  already  found, 
vers.  31,  32  :  the  just,  Levitically  and  theocratically  speaking.  This  righteousness  is 
nothing  ;  it  is  the  directest  way  to  conduct  to  true  righteousness  ;  but  on  condition 
that  a  man  does  nut  rest  in  it.  It  thus  affords  a  certain  occasion  for  joy  in  heaven — 
this  is  implied  in  the  comparative,  joy  more  than  .  ,  . — but  less  joy,  however, 
than  the  salvation  of  a  single  soul  fully  realized.  That  is  already  evident  from  the 
contrast  established  by  this  verse  between  the  joy  of  heaven  and  the  discontent  of  the 
Pliarisees  on  occasion  of  the  same  event  (ver.  1).  The  I  say  unto  you  has  here,  as 
everywhere,  a  special  solemnity.  Jesus  speaks  of  heavenly  things  as  a  witness  (John 
3  :  11)  and  as  an  interpreter  of  the  thoughts  of  God.  The  words  in  heaven  embrace 
God  and  the  beings  who  surround  Him,  those  who  are  represented  in  the  parable  by 
the  fnends  and  neighbors.  Tiie  conjunction  y  supposes  a  /xuXaov  which  is  not  ex- 
pressed. This  form  is  explained  by  the  blending  of  two  ideas  :  "  there  is  joy"  (hence 
the  absence  of  ud/.Xov),  "  there  is  yet  more  than  .  .  ."(and  hence  the?/).  This 
form  delicately  expresses  the  idea  indicated  above,  that  there  is  also  a  certain  satisfac- 
tion ia  heaven  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  sincere  Israelites.  How  can  one 
help  being  struck  with  the  manner  in  which  Jesus,  both  in  this  parable  and  the  two 
fallowing,  idenlifies  His  feelings  and  conduct  absolutely  with  the  feelings  and  the 
action  of  God  Himself?  The  shepherd  seeking,  the  woman  finding,  the  father  wel- 
coming— is  it  not  in  Ilis  person  that  God  accomplishes  all  those  divine  works? 

This  parable  is  placed  by  Matthew  in  the  great  discourse  of  chap.  18,  and — Bleek 
cannot  hiflp  acknowledging — because  of  an  association  of  ideas  i)elongiug  purely  to 
the  evangelist  himself.  Indeed,  the  appliuatiou  which  lie  makes  of  the  lost  sheep  to 
the  little  ones  (vers.  1-6  and  10  ;  ver  11  is  an  interpolation)  is  certainlj'  not  in  keejiing 
with  ihe  original  sense  of  this  parable.  The  original  reference  of  this  description  to 
lost  sinn'jrs,  as  IloUzmann  says 'in  the  .«ame  connection,  has  been  jyi'eserved  by  Lnke. 
But  how  in  this  case  are  we  to  explain  how  Matthew  has  wrested'  the  parable  from 
its  original  meaning  if  he  copied  the  same  document  as  Luke  (A,  according  to  PIoliz- 
mann)?  Besides,  h,)W  comes  it  tiiat  Matthew  omits  the  following  parable,  that  of  the 
drachma,  which  Luke,  according  to  this  critic,  takes,  as  well  as  the  preceding,  from 
the  common  document;  ? 

Vers.  8-10.*  T7t.e  Lost  Drachma.  The  anxiety  of  the  woman  to  find  her  lost  piece 
of  money  certainly  does  not  proceed  from  a  feeling  of  pity  ;  it  is  self-interest  which 
leads  her  to  act.  She  had  painfully  earned  it,  and  had  kept  it  in  reserve  for  some 
important  purpose  ;  it  is  a  real  loss  to  her.  Here  is  divine  love  portrayed  from  an  en- 
tirely different  side.  The  sinner  is  not  only,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  a  suffering  being, 
like  the  sheep  on  whom  He  takes  pity  ;  he  is  a  precious  being,  created  in  His  ima.^je, 
to  whom  He  has  assigned  a  part  in  the  accomplishment  of  His  plans.  A  lost  man  is 
a  blank  in  His  treasury.  Is  not  this  side  of  divine  love,  rightly  understood,  still  more 
striking  than  the  preceding  ? 

The  general  features,  as  well  as  the  minutest  details,  of  the  descriptions  are  fitted  to 
bring  into  prominence  this  idea  of  the  value  which  God  attaches  to  a  lost  soul.  Gene- 
ral features  :  1.  The  idea  of  loss  (ver.  8a)  ;  2.  The  persevering  care  which  the  woman 

*  Ver.  8.  bi.  B.  L.  X.  10  Mnn.,  ewS  ov  instead  of  £w;  otov.  Ver.  9.  6  Mjj.  25  Mnn., 
cvyKokei  instead  of  avyKaAeuat 


CHAP.   XV.  :  8-3:2.  375 

expcntis  iu  seeking  the  drachmn  (ver.  Sh)  ;  8.  Her  overf owing  joy  when  she  has  foiind 
it  (ver.  9;.  Details  :  The  woman  has  laboiiously  earned  this  small  sum,  and  saved  it 
only  at  the  cost  of  many  privations,  and  for  some  urgent  necessity.  Jesus  leaves  out 
the  ti  iiu(ji',  of  you,  of  ver.  4.  Perhaps  there  were  none  but  men  in  the  throng,  or  if 
iftherwiso.  He  was  addressing  them  only.  For  the  number  100,  ver.  4,  lie  subslilutes 
the  numl)er  10  ;  the  loss  of  one  in  10  is  more  serious  than  of  one  in  100.  The  drachma 
was  worth  about  eight  pence.  It  was  the  price  of  a  full  day's  woik.  Comp.  Watt. 
20  :  2,  where  the  master  agrees  with  the  laborers  for  a  fenny  (a  sum  nearly  equivalent 
to  eight  pena)  a  day,  and  liev.  G  :  G.  With  what  minute  pains  are  the  efforts  of  this 
woniiiii  described,  and  wiiat  a  charming  interior  is  the  picture  of  her  persevering 
search  !  She  lights  her  lamp  ;  for  iu  the  East  the  apartment  has  no  other  light" tiian 
that  which  is  admitted  by  the  door;  she  removes  every  article  of  furniture,  and 
sweeps  the  most  dusty  corners.  Such  is  the  image  of  God  coming  down  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  into  the  company  of  the  lowest  among  sinners,  following  them  to  the 
verj'  dens  of  the  theocracy,  with  the  light  of  divine  truth.  The  figure  of  the  sheep 
referred  rather  to  the  publicans  ;  and  that  of  the  drachma  applies  rather  to  the  second 
class  mentioned  in  ver.  1,  the  ufiapTu?.oi,  beings  plunged  in  vice. 

Iu  depicting  the  joy  of  the  womau  (ver.  9),  Luke  substitutes  the  Middle 
cvyKG/.eiTai,  she  calleth  to  herself,  for  the  Active  cvyKa7.E'i,  she  calldh,  ver.  6  ;  the  Alex. 
Ziave  ill-advisedly  obliterated  this  shade.  It  is  not,  as  in  the  preceding  parable,  the 
object  lost  which  profits  by  the  fiudiug  ;  it  is  the  woman  herself,  who  had  lost  some- 
tiiiug  of  her  own  ;  and  so  she  chiims  to  be  congratulated /<??•  herself ;  hence  the  Mid- 
dle. This  shade  of  expression  rttlects  the  entire  difference  of  meaning  between  the 
t-.vo  parables.  It  is  the  same  with  another  slight  modification.  Instead  of  the  ex- 
pression of  ver.  6  :  "  For  I  have  found  my  sheep  whicJi  was  lost  (  to  arroAu/i/^i),"  the 
W(;mau  says  here  :  "  the  piece  which  I  had  lost  (,7/v  cnTu/.Eca)"  ;  the  first  phrase 
turned  attention  to  the  shrep  anci  its  distress  ;  the  second  attracts  our  iulerest  to  the 
woman,  disconsolate  about  her  loss.  What  grandeur  belongs  to  the  picture  of  this 
humble  rejoicing  which  the  poor  woman  celebrates  with  her  neighbors,  when  it 
becomes  the  transparency  through  which  we  get  a  glimpse  of  God  Himself,  rejoicing 
w'th  His  elect  and  His  angels  over  the  salvation  of  a  single  sinner,  even  the  chief  ! 
The  l:i(l>ziov  Tuv  ayy.,  in  the  presence  of  the  nvrjels,  may  be  explained  iu  two  ways  : 
either  by  giving  to  the  word  Joy  the  meaning  subject  of  joy — in  that  case,  this  saying 
refers  directly  to  the  joy  of  the  angels  themselves — or  by  referring  the  word  ;tnpa  to 
the  joy  of  God  which  breaks  forth  in  presence  of  the  angels,  and  in  which  they  par- 
ticipate.    The  first  sense  is  the  more  natural. 

But  those  two  images,  borrowed  from  the  animal  and  inanimate  world,  remain  too 
far  beneath  their  object.  They  do  not  furnish  Jesus  with  the  means  of  displaying 
the  full  riches  of  feeling  which  filled  the  heart  of  God  toward  the  sinner,  nor  of  un- 
veiling  the  sinner's  inner  history  in  the  drama  of  conversion.  For  that,  He  needed  an 
image  borrowed  from  the  domain  of  moral  and  sensitive  nature,  the  sphere  of  human 
life.  The  word  which  sums  up  the  first  two  parables  is  grace  ;  that  which  sums  up 
the  third  is  faith. 

Vers.  11-32.  The  Child  lost  avd  found.  This  parable  consists  of  two  distinct  de- 
scriptions, which  form  the  counterpart  of  one  another,  that  of  the  younger  son  (vers. 
11-24),  and  that  of  the  elder  son  (vers.  25-32).  By  the  second.  Jesus  returns  com- 
pletely, as  we  shall  see,  to  the  historical  situation  described  vers.  1,  2,  and  the  scene 
is  closed. 


376  COMMElsTAKY    02n"    ST.   LUKE. 

Vers.  11-24.  The  younger  Son.  This  first  part  of  the  parable  embraces  four  repre- 
sentations correspoudiug  lo  Ibe  four  pliases  of  the  converted  sinner's  life  :  1st.  Bin 
(vers.  11-13)  ;  2d.  Misery  (vers.  14-lG)  ;  od.  Conversion  (vers.  17-20a) ;  Ath.  Res- 
toration (vers.  20^-24). 

Vers,  ll-lo.*  Jesus  discontinues  the  interrogative  form  used  in  the  two  previous 
cases  :  we  have  no  more  an  argument  ;  we  have  a  narrative,  a  real  parable.  The 
three  persons  compo-sing  the  family  represent  God  and  His  people.  In  accordance 
with  vers.  1,  2,  the  elder  sou,  the  representative  of  the  race,  the  prop  of  i\ni  gem,  and 
as  such  more  deeply  attached  than  tlie  younger  to  the  land  of  his  household  hearth, 
personifies  the  Israelites  who  were  Levitically  irreproachable,  and  especially  the 
Pharisees.  The  younger,  in  whose  case  the  family  bond  is  weaker,  and  whom  this 
very  circumstance  renders  more  open  to  the  temptation  of  breaking  with  it,  repre- 
sents those  who  have  abandoned  Jewish  legalism,  publicans  and  people  of  immoral 
lives.  His  demand  for  his  goods  is  most  probably  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
the  elder  received  as  his  inheritance  a  double  share  of  the  patrimonial  lauds,  the 
yonna-ev  members  a  single  share  (see  at  12  :  13).  The  latter  then  desired  that  his 
father,  anticipating  the  division,  should  give  him  the  equivalent  of  his  portion  in 
money,  an  arrangement  in  virtue  of  which  the  entire  domain,  on  the  father's  death, 
would  come  to  the  elder.  Two  things  impel  him  to  act  thus  :  the  air  of  the  pater- 
nal home  oppresses  him,  he  feels  the  constraint  ot  his  father's  presence  ;  then  the 
world  without  attracts  him,  he  hopes  to  enjoy  himself.  But  to  realize  his  wishes,  he 
needs  two  things — freedom  and  money.  Here  is  the  image  of  a  heart  swayed  by 
licentious  appetites  ;  God  is  the  obstacle  in  its  way,  and  freedom  to  do  anything  ap- 
pears to  it  as  the  condition  ot  happiness.  Money  ought  not  to  be  taken  as  a  figure 
applied  to  the  talents  and  graces  which  the  sinner  has  received  ;  it  simply  represents 
here  the  povrer  of  satisfying  one's  tastes.  In  the  father's  consenting  to  the  guilt}'- 
wish  of  his  son,  a  very  solemn  thought  is  expressed,  that  of  the  sinner's  abandon- 
ment to  the  desires  of  his  own  heart,  ihe  napa^tddvat  raii  ETTiOvuiaiS  (Rom.  1  :  24,  2n, 
28),  the  ceasing  on  the  part  of  the  Diviaj  Spirit  to  strive  against  the  inclinations  of  a 
spoiled  heart,  which  can  only  be  cured  by  the  bitter  experiences  of  sin.  God  gives 
such  a  man  over  to  his  folly.  The  use  ■which  the  sinner  makes  of  his  sadly-acquired 
liberty  is  described  in  ver.  13.  All  those  images  of  sin  blended  in  many  respects,  so 
far  as  the  sinners  present  were  concerned,  with  actual  facts.  The  far  country  to 
which  the  sou  flies  is  the  emblem  of  the  state  of  a  soul  which  has  so  strayed  that  the 
thought  of  God  no  longer  even  occurs  to  it.  The  complete  dissipation  of  his  goods 
represents  the  carrying  out  of  man's  liberty  to  its  furthest  limits.  Maapav  is  not  an 
adjective,  but  an  adverb  (ver.  20,  7  :  6,  etc). 

Vers.  14-16. f  The  libeity  of  self-enjoyment  is  not  unlimited,  as  the  sinner  would 
fain  think  ;  it  has  limits  of  two  kinds  :  the  one  pertainiu"-  to  the  individual  himself, 
such  as  satiety,  remorse,  the  feeling  of  destitution,  and  abjectness  resulting  from  vice 
(wJien  lie  had  spent  all)  ;  the  other  arising  from  certain  unfavorable  outward  cii'cum- 
stances,  here  represented  by  the  famine  which  occurs  at  this  crisis,  that  is,  domestic 
or  public  calamities  which  complete  the  subduing  of  the  heart  which  has  been  already 
overwhelmed,  and  further,  the  absence  of  all  divine  consolation.  Let  those  two 
causes  of  misery  coincide,  and  wretchedness  is  at  its  height.     Then  happens  what 

*  Ver.  12.  !!*<=.  A.  B.  L.,  o  6e  instead  of  nac. 

\  Ver.  14.  !!^.  A.  B.  D.  L.  8  Mnn.,  WAypo^  instead  of  laxvpo';.  Ver.  16.  i^.  B.  D.  L. 
R.  some  Mnn.  Sy^'^"^  It"''''.,  x^P~°-°^^V^(ii-  f"  instead  of  yefuoac  ttiv  koiIiov  nvrov  am. 


ciiAi'.  XV.  :  ll-*:o.  377 

Jesus  calls  voTepe'taOai,  to  be  in  xcnnt,  the  ubsolutc  void  of  a  Iicart  which  has  sacrificed 
everything  for  pleasure,  aud  which  has  nothing  left  but  suffering.  We  can  hardly 
avoid  seeing,  in  the  ignoble  dependence  into  which  this  young  Jew  falls  under  a 
heatiieu  master,  an  allusion  to  the  position  of  the  publicans  who  were  engaged  in  the  i 
service  of  the  Roman  power.  But  the  general  idea  which  corresponds  to  this  touch 
is  Ihat  of  tiie  degrading  dependence,  in  respect  of  the  woild,  to  which  the  vicious 
man  always  finds  himself  reduced  in  the  end.  Ho  sought  pleasure,  he  finds  pain  ;  he 
wished  freedom,  he  gets  bondage.  The  word  iKoA/jfjr]  has  in  it  sometliing  abject  ; 
the  unhappy  wretch  is  a  sort  of  appendage  to  a  strange  personality.  To  feed  swine, 
the  lust  business  for  a  Jew.  Keparwu  denotes  a  species  of  coarse  beau,  used  in  the 
East  for  fattening  tiiose  animals.  At  ver.  IG,  the  Alex.  Mjj.  arc  caught  in  the  very 
act  of  purism  ;  men  of  delicate  taste  could  not  bear  the  gross  expression,  to  ■jilltheMly 
icith  .  .  .  There  was  therefore  substituted  in  the  public  reading  the  more  genteel 
term,  io  satisfy  himself  with  .  .  .  ;  and  this  correction  has  passed  into  the  Alex, 
text.  The  act  expressed  by  the  received  reading  is  that,  not  of  relishing  food,  but 
merely  of  filling  a  void.  The  smallest  details  are  to  the  lifeinthisportraiture.  Dur- 
ing this  time  of  famine,  when  the  poor  herdsman's  allowance  did  not  suffice  to  ap- 
pease his  hunger,  he  was  reduced  to  covet  the  coarse  bean  with  which  the  herd  was 
carefully  fattened,  w^hen  he  drove  it  home  :  the  swine  were  in  reality  more  piecious 
than  he.  They  sold  high,  an  image  of  the  conlemi)l  and  neglect  which  the  profligate 
experiences  from  that  very  world  to  which  he  has  sacrificed  the  most  sacred  feelings. 
Vers.  17-20a.*  This  representation,  which  depicts  the  conversion  of  the  sinner, 
includes  two  things,  repentance  (ver.  17)  and  faith  (vers.  18-20«).  The  words,  when 
he  came  to  himself,  ver.  17,  denote  a  solemn  moment  in  human  life,  that  in  which 
the  heart,  after  a  long  period  of  dissipation,  for  the  first  time  becomes  self-collected. 
The  heart  is  God's  sanctuary.  To  come  to  ourselves  is  therefore  to  find  God.  Re- 
pentance is  a  change  of  feeling  ;  we  find  it  fully  depicted  in  the  regret  which  the 
sinner  feels  for  that  from  which  he  has  fled  (the  father's  house),  and  in  that  horror 
which  fills  him  at  that  which  he  sought  so  ardently  (the  strange  laud).  As  to  the 
mercenaiies  whom  he  envies,  might  they  not  represent  those  heathen  proselytes  who 
had  a  place,  although  a  very  inferior  one  (Ihe  outer  court),  in  the  temple,  and  who 
might  thus  from  afar  lake  part  in  the  woiship  ;  advantages  from  which  the  publi- 
cans, so  long  as  they  kept  to  their  profession,  were  debarred  by  theexcommunicalioa 
which  fell  on  them.  From  this  change  of  feeling  there  springs  a  resolution  (ver.  18), 
which  rests  on  a  remnant  of  confidence  in  the  goodness  of  his  father  ;  this  is  the 
'-~dawn  of  faith.  Did  we  not  recollect  that  we  are  yet  in  the  parable,  the  meaning  of 
the  words  before  thee  would  appear  to  blend  with  that  of  the  pi'ecediug,  against 
heaven.  But  in  the  image  adoi)ted  Ihe  two  expressions  have  a  distinct  meaning. 
Heaven  is  the  avenger  of  all  holy  feelings  when  outraged,  and  particularly  of  filial 
devotion  when  trampled  under  foot.  The  young  man  sinned  before  his  father  at  the 
time  when,  the  latter  beholding  him  with  grief,  he  defied  his  last  look,  and  obstinately 
turned  his  back  on  him.  The  possibility  of  an  immediate  and  entire  restoi-ation  does 
not  enter  his  mind.  lie  is  ready  to  take  the  p(iSition  of  a  servant  in  the  house  where 
he  lived  as  a  son,  but  where  he  shall  have  at  least  wherewith  to  satisfy  his  hunger. 
Here  is  portrayed  that  publican  (described  in  chap.  18)  who  stood  afar  off,  and  dared 

*  Ver.  17.  i*  B.  L.  some  Mnn.,  fdr/  instead  of  f^rrev.  A.  B.  P.,  nrpLfjaevovTai 
instead  of  -qjicnnov^Lv.  6  Mjj.  some  .Mnn.  Syr.  liP'<-'-'q»e,  Vg.  add  wde  to  X<//cj.  Ver. 
19.  16  Mjj.  40  Mnn.     Iip'orique^  omit  sat  before  ovKtri. 


37S  COMMEXTAKY    ON    ST.   LIKE. 

not  even  raise  bis  eyes  to  God.  But  the  essential  fact  is,  that  the  refsolution  once 
taken,  he  carries  it  out.  Here  is  failli  in  its  fuhiess,  actually  arisiui^,  going  to  God. 
Failh  is  not  a  thouglit  or  a  desire  ;  it  is  an  act  which  brings  two  living  beings  into 
personal  contact.  What  an  imprt^ssiun  must  have  been  produced  on  tiie  publicans 
pieseut  by  this  faithful  picture  of  llieir  past  and  present  experiences  !  But  how  much 
deeper  still  the  emotion  which  awaits  them  when  they  hear  Jesus  unveiling,  in  the 
sequel,  tlie  feelings  and  conduct  of  God  Himself  toward  them  ! 

Vers.  20^-24."  Free  pardon,  eulire  restoration,  the  joys  of  adoption — such  are  the 
contents  of  these  verses.  The  heart  of  God  overflows  in  ihe  sayings  of  Jesus.  Every 
Avord  vibrates  with  emotion,  at  once  the  tendcrest  and  the  holiest.  The  father  seems 
never  to  have  given  up  waiting  for  his  son  ;  perceiving  him  from  afar,  he- runs  to 
meet  him.  God  discerns  the  faniest  sigh  after  good  which  breaks  forth  in  a  wander- 
er's heart  ;  and  from  the  moment  this  heart  takes  a  step  toward  Him,  He  takes  ten  to 
meet  it,  striving  to  show  it  something  of  His  love.  This  history  was  exemplified  at 
the  very  moment  as  between  the  publicans  present  and  God,  who  was  drawing  near 
\  to  them  in  Jesus.  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  confession  uttered  by  the 
prodigal  son.  ver.  21,  and  that  which  had  been  extracted  from  him  by  the  extremity 
of  his  misery  (vers.  18,  19).  The  latter  was  a  cry  of  despair  ;  but  now  his  distress  is 
over.  It  is  therefore  the  cry  of  repentant  love.  The  terms  are  the  same:  I  have 
sinned  ;  but  how  different  is  the  accent.  Luther  felt  it  profoundly  ;  the  discoverj'  of 
the  difference  between  the  repentance  of  fear  and  that  of  love  was  the  true  principle 
of  the  Reformation.  He  cannot  come  to  the  end  ;  the  very  assurance  of  pardon  pre- 
vents him  from  fruishiug  and  saying,  imtke  me  as  .  .  .,  according  to  his  fir.'-t  pur- 
pose. Tlie  Alex,  have  not  understood  this  omission,  and  have  mistakenly  added  here 
the  last  words  of  ver.  19. 

Pardon  involves  restoration.  No  humbling  novitiate  ;  no  passing  through  inferior 
positions.  The  restoration  is  as  complete  as  the  repentance  was  sincere  and  the  faith 
profound.  In  all  those  touches — the  shoes,  the  robe,  the  signet  ring  (the  mark  of  the 
free  man,  fitted  to  express  an  independent  will) — a  sound  exegesis  should  limit  itself 
to  finding  the  expression  of  the  fulness  of  restoration  to  the  filial  standing  ;  only 
homiletic  application  may  allow  itself  to  go  further,  though  even  it  should  beware  of 
falling  into  a  play  of  wit,  as  when  Jerome  and  Olshausen  see  in  the  robe  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  in  the  ring  the  seal  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  shoes  the  power  of 
walking  in  the  ways  of  God.  Others  have  found  in  the  servants  the  image  of  the 
Hol3^  Spirit  or  of  pastors  !  The  Alex,  reject  t?}v  before  6roX?}v,  and  that  justly. 
There  is  a  gradation  :  first  a  robe,  in  opposition  to  Uiikedness  ;  then,  and  even  Vie  best, 
because  he  who  has  descended  lowest,  if  he  rise  again,  should  mount  up  highest.  In 
—  the  phrase,  tlie  fatted  calf,  ver.  23,  the  article  should  be  observed.  On  every  farm 
there  is  alwaj's  tlie  calf  which  is  fatteumg  for  feast  days.  Jesus  knows  rural  cus- 
toms. Augustine  and  Jerome  find  in  this  calf  an  indication  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  ! 
According  to  the  tout  enaemUe  of  the  picture,  which  should  be  our  standard  in  inter-- 
preting  all  the  special  details,  this  emblem  represents  all  that  is  most  excellent  and 
sweet  in  the  communications  of  divine  grace.     The  absence  of  every  feature  fitted  to 

*  Ver.  21.  7  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  Km  bcfo'-''  nvKeri.  ».  B  D.  U.  X.  20 
Mnn.  add,  after  vioc  anv,  Troitjaoi^  fis  w5  eva  tuv  fiinOicoi'  ouk.  Ver.  23.  ii.  B.  L.  X.  It. 
Vg.  AdA  Taxv  (D.,  Ta;\;fw?)  before  e^eveyKare.  7  Mjj.  (Alex.)  omit  t?;!' before  oro/.??!'. 
Ver.  23.  !>>.  B.  L.  R.  X.  It.  Vg.,  (psperE  instead  of  eveyKavTeS.  Ver.  24.  9  Mjj.  30 
Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  kul  before  «7ro/w?.(j?  i]v. 


cHAi'.    XV.  :  :iO-3i.  '37 *J 

represent  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  is  at  once  explained  when  we  remember  that  we  Imvc  I 
here  to  do  with  a  parable,  and  that  expiation  has  no  place  in  the  relations  between 
man  and  man.  By  the  plural,  let  its  be  merry,  the  father  himself  takes  his  sliarc  in  ^ 
the  feast  (as  in  ver.  7).  The  two  parallel  clauses  of  vcr.  24  recall  tlie  two  aspects  in 
wliich  sin  was  presented  in  the  two  previous  parables  ;  he  wan  dead  relates  to  the  per- 
sonal luisL-ry  of  lliu  sIuiict  (the  lost  sheep)  ;  he  wdn  lod,  to  the  loss  fell  by  God  Himself 
fthe  lost  drachma).  The  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  coinbiucs  those  two  pDints  of 
view  :  the  sun  was  lost,  and  tlie  father  had  lost  sumelhing.  Willi  the  words,  and  tlicy 
hyau  to  be  merri/,  the  piirable  reaches  the  exact  point  at  which  things  wero  at  the 
moment  when  Chiist  uUered  it  (vers.  1  and  2).    v 

Vers.  2.}-o2.  'The  elder  Son.  This  part  embraces  :  l.st.  The  interview  of  the  elder 
son  with  the  servant  (vers.  25-28(7)  ;  2d.  His  interview  with  his  father  (vers.  286-o2). 
Jesus  here  shows  the  Pharisees  their  murmurings  put  in  action,  and  constrains  them 
to  feel  their  gravity. 

Vers.  25-28rt.*  TVhile  the  house  is  filled  with  mirth,  the  elder  son  is  at  work. 
Here  is  the  image  of  the  Phaiisee  busied  with  his  rites,  while  repentant  sinneis  are 
rejoicing  in  the  serene  sunshine  of  grace.  Every  free  and  joyous  impulse  is  abhor- 
rent to  the  formal  spirit  of  pharisaism.  This  repugnance  is  described  in  ver.  26. 
Rather  than  go  straight  into  the  house,  the  elder  sou  begins  l)y  gathering  iufoimution 
from  a  servant  ;  he  does  not  feel  himself  at  home  in  the  house  (John  8  :  35).  The  ser- 
vant in  his  answer  substitutes  for  the  expressions  of  the  father  :  he  teas  dead  .  .  ., 
lost  .  .  .,  these  simple  words  :  he  is  coine  safe  and  sound.  This  is  the  fact,  without 
the  father's  moral  appreciation,  which  it  is  not  fitting  in  him  to  appropriate.  Every- 
tbmg  in  the  slightest  details  of  the  picture  breathes  the  most  exquisite  delicacy. 
The  refusal  to  enter  corresponds  to  the  discontent  of  the  Pharisees,  who  do  not  under- 
stand being  saved  in  common  with  the  vicious. 

Vers.  28i-32.f  This  interview  contains  the  full  revelation  of  pharisaic  feeling, 
and  brings  into  view  the  contrast  between  it  and  the  fatherly  lieart  of  God.  The 
procedure  of  Ihe  father,  who  steps  out  to  his  sou  and  invites  him  to  enter,  is  realized 
in  the  very  conversation  which  Jesus,  come  from  God,  holds  with  them  at  the  mo- 
ment. The  answer  of  the  son  (vers.  29  and  ;50)  includes  two  accusations  against  his 
father  :  the  one  bears  ou  his  way  of  acting  toward  himself  (ver.  29),  the  other  on  his 
conduct  in  respect  of  his  other  son  (ver.  30).  The  contrast  is  meimt  to  bring  out  the 
partiality  of  the  father.  The  blind  and  innocent  self-satisfaction  which  forms  the 
lit  art  of  Pharisaism  could  not  be  better  depicted  than  in  the  words  :  "  neither  trans- 
gressed I  at  any  lime  thy  commandment  ;"  and  the  servile  and  mercenary  position  of 
the  legal  Jew  in  the  theocracy,  than  thus  :  "  Lo  !  these  many  years  do  1  serve  thee." 
Bengel  makes  the  simple  observation  on  these  words  :  servus  erai.  What  in  reality 
was  his  fatherlo  him  ?  A  master  !  He  even  counts  the  years  of  his  hard  servitude  : 
Tliere  are  so  many  yrarx  !  .  .  .  Such  is  man's  view  of  accomplishing  good  under 
the  law  :  a  labor  painfully  carried  through,  and  which  consequently  merits  payment. 
But  by  its  very  nature  it  is  totally  deprived  of  the  delights  which  belong  only  to  the 

*  Ver.  26.  Jvrov  after  Ttm^Mv,  in  5  (not  ?*).  i"?  rtnlv  snoported  by  some  IMnn. 

+  Ver.  28.  Tlip  Mss.  are  divided  betwpen  tjOfAfi"  (T.  K.)  ami  T/O^Arfdi-v,  and  be- 
tween o  ovv  (T.  T?.)  and  o  Sf.  (Alex.).  Ver.  29.  7  ]\IjJ.  add  avrcw  to  rw  narpt. 
Ver.  30.  Instead  of  mv  tindxov  rov  6itfvtov.  6  Mij  ,  rnv  (iirF.vrov  no6](OV.  Ver. 
32.  Instead  of  avfZvdFv  IT.  "R.)  »*  B.  L.  R.  A.  Syr"'',  f?7;^fi\  ».  B.  X.  several 
Mna.  It.  omit  ^ai,  and  A.  B.  D.  L.  R.  X.  rjv,  before  anoXaiXooi. 


3bU  L'OMMENTAUY    ON   ST.    LUKE. 

sphere  ot  free  love  ;  it  has  no  other  idea  of  them  than  that  which  it  gets  by  seeing 
thoiii  joys  of  the  reconciled  sinner,  by  which  it  is  scandalized.  The  joy  wnich  is 
wanting  to  it  is  this  kid  to  make  merry  witk  its  friends,  which  iias  never  been  granted 
to  it. 

With  the  hard  and  ill-paid  labor  of  legal  obedience  he  contrasts  (ver.  30)  the  life  of 
his  brother,  merry  in  siu,  happier  still,  if  possible,  in  the  hour  of  his  return  aud 
pardon.  The  meaniug  is,  that  in  the  eyes  of  pharisaism,  as  virtue  is  a  task,  sin  is  a 
pleasure  ;  and  hence  there  ought  to  be  a  payment  for  the  first,  an  equivalent  of  pain 
for  the  second.  The  father,  by  refusing  to  the  one  his  just  revvard,  by  adding  in  the 
case  of  the  other  joy  to  joy,  the  enjoyments  of  the  paternal  home  to  those  of  de- 
bauchery, lias  shown  his  preference  for  the  sinner  aud  his  sympathy  wilii  siu.  Thy 
son,  says  the  elder  sou,  instead  of  :  my  brother .  He  would  express  at  once  the  parti- 
ality of  his  father  and  his  own  dislike  to  the  sinner.  Do  not  those  sayings  which  Jesus 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  righteous  legalist,  contain  the  keenest  ciiticism  of  a  state 
of  soul  wherein  men  discharge  duty  all  the  while  abhorring  it,  and  wherein  while 
avoiding  sin,  they  thirst  after  it?  The  particular  ^etcx  nopvcSv  is  a  stroke  of  the 
pencil  added  to  the  picture  of  ver.  13  by  the  charitable  hand  of  the  elder  brother. 

The  father's  answer  meets  perfectly  the  two  accusations  of  his  sou.  Ver.  31  replies 
to  ver.  39  ;  ver.  32  to  ver.  30.  The  father  first  clears  himself  from  the  charge  of  in- 
justice to  the  son  who  is  speaking  to  him;  and  with  what  condescension!  "My 
c\\\\(\.{TEHvoy)."  This  form  of  address  has  in  it  something  more  loving  even  than 
vie,  son.  Then  he  reminds  him  that  his  life  with  him  might  have  been  a  feast  all 
along.  There  was  no  occasion.  Iheiefore,  to  make  a  special  feast  for  him.  And  what 
good  would  a  particular  gift  serve,  when  everything  in  the  house  was  continually  at 
his  disposal.  The  meaning  of  tliis  remarkable  saying  is,  that  nothing  prevented  the 
believing  Israelite  from  already  enjoying  the  sweets  of  divine  communion — a  fact 
proved  by  the  Psalms  ;  cump.  e.g.  Ps.  23  and  63.  St.  Paul  himself,  who  ordinarily 
presents  the  law  as  the  instrument  of  condemnation,  nevertheless  derives  the  formula 
of  grace  from  a  saying  of  Moses  (Rom.  10:6-8),  proving  that  in  his  eyes  grace  is 
already  in  the  law,  through  the  pardon  which  accompanies  sacrifice  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  granted  to  him  who  asks  Him  (Ps.  51  :  9-14)  ;  and  that  when  he  speaks  of  (iie 
law  as  he  ordinarily  does,  it  is  after  the  manner  of  his  adversaries,  isolating  the  com- 
mandment from  grace.  In  the  same  way  as  ver.  31  presents  theocratic  fidelity  as  a 
happiness,  and  not  a  task,  so  ver.  33  reveals  sin  as  a  misery,  and  not  asanadvantiige. 
I'here  was  therefore  ground  for  c  lebrating  a  feast  on  the  return  of  one  who  had  just 
escaped  frmn  so  great  a  misery,  aud  by  his  arrival  had  restored  the  life  of  the  familv 
in  its  completeness.  Thy  brother,  says  the  father  ;  it  is  the  answer  to  the  thy  son  of 
ver.  30.  He  reminds  him  of  the  claims  of  fraternal  love.  Here  Jesus  stops;  He 
does  not  say  what  part  the  elder  son  took.  It  lay  with  the  Pharisees  themselves,  I)y 
the  conduct  which  Ihty  would  adopt,  to  decide  this  question  and  finish  the  nan  alive. 

The  Tubingen  school  (Zeller,  Volkm'.r,  Hilgenfeld,  not  Kostlin)  agree  in  renaid- 
ing  the  elder  son,  nut  as  the  phurisaic;  party,  but  as  the  .lewish  people  in  general  ; 
the  youngLT  son,  not  as  the  publicans,  but  Gentile  nations.  "The  elder  son  is  un- 
mistakably the  iniiige  of  Judaism,  wiiich  deems  that  it  possesses  special  merit  I)ecau*e 
of  its  fidelity  to  tlie  one  true  God.  The  youneer  son  .  .  .  i.'s  the  not  less  ea«ily 
recognized  portrait  of  Gtnlile  humanil}'  given  up  to  polytheism  and  immorality. 
Tiie  discontent  of  the  first,  on  seeing  the  reception  granted  to  his  brnther,  lepre.'-enls 
tJie  jealousy  of  the  .Tews  on  acctmiil  of  the  entranc  ■  of  the  Gentiles  into  th"  Ch'irrdi  " 
(Hilgenfeld,  "die  Evangel.,"  p.  198).     It  would  follow,  then  :  1.  That  this  paiable 


<HAi'.    XVI.  :  1.  ;581 

harl  been  invented  and  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  hy  Luke,  •with  the  view  of  sup- 
pi'iliug  the  system  of  liis  in-ister  Rml  ;  2.  Tliiit  (o  llns  iiivciilidii  lie  liiul  uililed  a  scc- 
oti  I,  iuteiulici  li>  accieiiil  Ihe  former,  lliul  of  Ilie  lustoiiciil  siluation  dcsciilied  vers.  1 
and '3.  But.  1.  Is  it  cuiici  ivalilu  liial  the  lyaiigili^l,  who  maiUed  out  his  own  pro- 
g;a.uiue  I..r  hirui-lf,  1  :  1-4.  .-iiuuld  lake  theliluMty  of  treating  his  materials  in  .so  fiee 
an. I  easy  a  style  '2.  Have  wo  udI  found  in  tliis  de.-eiiption  a  multilurle  of  delicate 
aliusi./ns  lo  ttie  liistor.ical  surioundiniis  amid  which  the  paiable  i.s  reputed  to  have 
been  uttered,  and  which  would  not  lie  applicable  in  the  sense  proposed  (veis.  lo,  17, 
etc.)?  H.  Hjw  from  this  parable  St.  Paul  miglit  have  extracted  the  doctrine  of  jusli- 
licalion  by  faith,  is  easy  to  understand.  But  that  this  onkr  was  inverted,  that  the 
paiai)le  was  invented  as  an  atier-thuiight  to  give  a  Ixxly  to  the  Pauline  doctrine,  is 
incom[)aLil)le  with  the  absence  of  eveiy  dogmatic  clement  m  the  exposition.  Would 
n.)i  liie  names  of  repentance,  faith,  ju-tilicalion,  antl  the  idea  of  expiation,  have  been 
infallibly  iulrodiiced,  if  it  had  been  the  result  of  a  di,gmiitic  study  contemporary  with 
the  ministry  of  Paul  ?  4.  We  have  seen  lliat  the  descripi  ion  finds  its  perfect  explana- 
tion, tliat  there  remains  not  a  single  obscure  point  in  tlie  light  in  ■which  it  is  placed  by 
Luke.  It  is  therefore  arbitrary  to  seek  another  setting  for  it.  The  prejudice  which 
has  led  the  Tiibiugen  school  lo  this  c(.nlia-texlual  inteipietation  is  evitlent.  Keim, 
while  (iiscovering,  like  this  school,  Panlinism  as  tlie  Ita.'-is  (,f  the  parable  (p.  80), 
think-*  that  here  we  have  one  of  the  passages  wherein  the  author,  witli  the  view  of 
conciliating,  more  or  less  abjures  his  master,  St.  Paul.  The  evangelist  dares  not 
■wholly  disapprove  the  Judeo-Christianity  which  holds  bj''  the  conimaiidments  ;  he 
praises  it  even  (ver.  31).  He  only  demands  that  it  shall  aulliorize  the  entrance  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  Church  ;  and  on  this  condition  he  lets  its  legal  spirit  pass.  We 
shouUl  thus  have  simply  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  principles  which  contiicted  witii 
one  auuther  in  the  apostolic  churches.  But,  1.  In  this  attempt  at  conciliation,  the 
elder  son  would  be  completel}'  sacriticed  to  the  younger  ;  for  the  latter  is  seated  at 
table  in  the  house,  the  former  is  wiihnut,  and  we  remain  in  ignornnce  as  to  whether 
he  will  re-enter.  And  this  h\st  would  represent  the  apostolic  Christianity  which 
founded  the  Church  !  2.  Adopting  biblical  premises,  ver.  '31  can  easily  be  applied  to 
the  MosMic  system  faithfully  observed,  and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  according  to  the 
view  of  St.  Paul  himself.  3.  It  belonged  to  the  method  of  progressive  transition, 
which  Jesus  always  observed,  to  seek  to  develope  within  the  bosom  of  the  ]\Iosaic 
dispensition,  and  without  ever  attacking  it,  the  new  principle  wdiich  was  to  succeed 
it.  and  the  germ  of  which  was  already  deposited  in  it.  Jesus  did  not  wish  to  sup- 
pi  ess  anything  which  He  had  not  coriipletely  replaced  and  sui passed.  He  therefore 
accepted  the  ancient  system,  while  attaching  to  it  the  new.  The  facts  pointed  out  by 
Keim  aie  fully  explained  by  this  situation. 

Holtzmann  thinks  that  our  parable,  which  is  not  found  in  IMalthew,  may  really  be 
only  an  amplification  of  that  of  the  two  sons,  which  is  found  in  tliat  evangelist  (Matt. 
21  '28-80).  Does  not  this  supposition  do  too  much  honor  to  the  alleged  amplifier, 
whether  Luke  or  any  other  ? 

6.  Tlie  Two  Parables  on  the  use  of  EartUy  Goods  :  chap.  IG.  Tliose  two  remaik- 
able  passages  are  peculiar  to  Like,  though  taken,  according  to  Holtzmann,  from  the 
common  source  A,  from  which  Matthew  also  borrows.  For  what  reason,  on  this 
hypothesis,  has  the  latter  omitted  them  ?  The  second  especially  (ver.  31  :  Tltey  have 
Moses  and  the  prophets)  was  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  this  Go.speL  Ac- 
cording lo  Weizsacker,  the  two  parables  have  undergone  ver}' grave  modifications  in 
the  course  of  successive  editions.  In  his  view,  the  original  thought  of  the  parable  of 
the  unjust  stew'ard  was  this  :  Beneficence,  the  means  of  justification  for  injustices 
committed  by  liim  who  shows  it.  In  our  Gospel,  it  is  intended  to  promise  to  the  Gen- 
tiles an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  recompense  for  their  benefits  toward 
the  lawful  heirs  of  the  kinsidom.  The  second  parable  would  also  belong  in  origin  to 
the  tendency  of  Ebionite  Judeo-Christianity  ;  it  would  transform  into  a  descriptiou 
the  idea  of  tlie  four  beatitudes  and  four  maledictions,  which  i  i  Lukeo[)en  the  Sermon 
OD  the  Mount.     Later,  it  became  the  representation  of  the  rejection  of  the  unbeliev- 


382  COMMEXTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

ing  Jews  (the  -wicked  rich  man  and  his  brethren),  and  of  the  salvation  of  tlie  Geuliles 
represented  by  Lazarus  (probably  a  Gentile,  according  to  ver.  21).  We  shall  see  if 
the  interpretation  justifies  suppositions  so  violent. 

This  piece  contains  :  Ut.  The  parable  of  the  unjust  steward,  with  accompanying 
reflections  (vers.  1-13)  ;  2cl.  Rfliectioiis  forming  an  introduction  to  the  paiable  of  the 
wicked  licli  man,  and  the  parable  itself  (vers.  14-31).  Those  two  portraits  are  evi- 
dently tlie  cr.unterparts  of  one  another.  The  idea  common  to  both  is  that  of  the  re- 
lation between  the  use  made  of  earthly  goods  and  man's  future  beyond  tlie  tomb. 
The  steward  represents  the  owner  who  is  able  to  secure  his  future  by  a  wise  use  of 
those  transitory  goods  ;  the  wicked  rich  man,  the  owner  who  compromises  his  future 
by  neglecting  this  just  employment  of  them. 

1st.  Vers.  1  13.  The  Unjust  Steward.  Is  there  a  connection  between  this  lesson 
on  riches  and  the  preceding  ?  The  formula  e'Asys  6^  xai,  and  He  said  also  (ver.  1), 
seems  to  indicate  that  there  is.  Olshausen  supposes  that  the  disciples  {ver.  1)  to  whom 
the  parable  is  addressed  are  publicans  brouglit  back  to  God,  those  recent  converts  of 
chap.  15,  whom  Jesus  was  exhorting  to  employ  wisely  the  earthly  goods  which  they 
had  acquired  unjustly.  But  the  expression  :  to  His  disciples  (ver.  1),  refers  naturally 
to  the  ordinary  disciples  of  our  Lord.  In  the  sense  of  Olshausen,  some  epithet  would 
require  to  have  been  added.  The  connection  is  rather  in  the  keeping  up  of  the  con- 
trast between  the  life  of  faith  and  pharisaic  righteousness.  The  two  chief  sins  of  the 
Pharisees  were  pride,  with  its  fruit  hypocrisy,  and  avarice  (7er,  14).  AVe  see  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  JNlount,  which  was  directed  against  their  false  righteousness,  how 
Jesus  passes  directly  from  the  one  of  those  sins  to  the  other  (Matf.  G  :  18,  10).  This 
is  precisdy  what  He  does  here.  He  had  just  been  stigmatizing  pharisaic  pride  in  the 
person  of  the  elder  son.  Now  this  disposition  is  ordinarily  accompanied  by  that 
proud  hardness  which  characterizes  the  wicked  rich  man,  as  the  heart  broken  by  the 
experiences  of  faith  is  naturally  disposed  to  the  liberal  actions  of  the  unjust  steward. 
Hence  the  form  :  //^  said  to  them  also. 

And  first  the  parable  :  vers.  1-9.*  In  this  portraiture,  as  in  some  others,  Jesus 
does  not  scruple  to  use  the  example  of  the  wicked  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  His 
disciples.  And  in  fact,  in  the  midst  of  conduct  morally  blamable,  the  wicked  often 
display  remarkable  qualities  of  activity,  prudence,  and  perseverance,  which  may 
serve  to  humble  and  encourage  believers.  The  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  is  the 
masterpiece  of  this  sort  of  teaching. 

The  rich  man  of  ver.  1  is  a  great  lord  living  in  the  capital,  far  from  his  lands,  the 
administration  of  which  he  has  committed  to  a  factor.  The  latter  is  not  a  mere  slave, 
as  in  13  :  43  ;  he  is  a  freeman,  and  even  occupying  a  somewhat  high  social  position 
(ver.  3).  He  enjoys  very  large  powers.  He  gathers  in  and  sells  the  produce  at  his 
pleasure.  Living  himself  on  the  revenue  of  the  domain,  it  is  his  duty  to  transmit  to 
his  master  the  surplus  of  the  income.  Olshausen  alleges  that  this  master,  in  the  view 
of  Jpsus,  represents  the  prince  of  this  world,  the  devil,  and  that  only  thus  can  the 
eulogium  be  explained  which  he  passes  (ver.  8)  on  the  conduct  of  his  knavish  servant. 
This  explanation  is  incompatible  with  the  deprivation  of  the  steward  pronounced  by 

*  Ver.  1.  !^.  B.  D.  L.  R.  omit  avrov  after  na^r/rai.  Ver.  3.  7  Mjj.  omit  6ov 
after  otHovouiai.  i^.  B.  D.  P.,  Svv?/  instead  of  8vinj6T].  Ver.  4.  !!>.  B.  D.  some 
Mnn.  Syr.  add  eh,  and  L.  X.  Itpi'^'-ique^  y^^  ^^^o  before  tt^S.  Vers.  6,  7.  ii.  B.  D. 
L..  ra  xP<3r///«Tr6r  instead  of  to  ypani-ia.  Ver.  9.  8  Mjj.  some  .Mnn.  Syr^''''.  It"''"!., 
enXinr)  or  eKXeiTtt]  instead  of  sxXntijrE.  which  the  T.  R.  reads  with  i^'*  F.  P.  U. 


ciiAi'.    \vi.  :  ]-];;.  383. 

the  master,  ver.  2,  and  which,  in  the  view  of  our  Lord,  can  only  denote  death.  It  is 
not  Satan  who  disposes  of  hutuan  life.  Satan  is  not  even  the  master  of  riches  ;  does 
not  God  .say,  Ilag.  2:8:  "  The  silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine  V"  Comp.  Ps. 
24  :  1.  Finally,  it  is  not  to  Satan,  certainly,  that  we  shall  have  to  give  account  of 
onr  adnunibtration  of  earthly  goods  !  Our  Lord  clearly  gives  out  Himself  as  tlie  per- 
sun  represented  by  tlie  master,  vers.  8  and  9  :  'Hie  Master  commended  .  .  .;  and  I  also 
say  xuito  you.  Again,  could  we  admit  that  in  ver.  12  the  expression  :  faithful  in  that 
which  is  another  7nan's  (>our  master's),  should  signify  :  "  faithful  to  that  whicli  the 
devil  has  committed  to  j'ou  of  his  goods?"  Meyer  had  modiJied  this  explanation  of 
Olshausen  :  the  master,  according  to  him,  is  wealth  personified,  manunou.  But  how 
are  we  to  attribute  the  personal  part  wiiich  the  master  in  the  parable  plays  to  this 
abstract  being,  wealth?  The  master  can  only  represent  God  Himself,  Him  icho 
vtakiih  poor  and  makcth  rich,  tcho  bringcth  low  and  liftdh  vp.  In  relation  to  his 
neighbor,  every  man  may  be  regarded  as  the  proprietor  of  his  goods  ;  but  in  relation 
to  God,  no  one  is  more  than  a  tenant.  This  gicat  and  simple  thought,  by  destroying 
the  right  of  property-  relatively  to  God,  gives  it  its  true  basis  in  the  relation  between 
man  and  man.  Every  man  should  respect  the  property  of  his  neighbor,  just  because 
it  is  not  the  latter's  propertj',  but  that  of  God,  who  has  entrusteil  it  to  him.  In  the 
leport  made  to  the  master  about  the  delinquencies  of  his  steward,  we  are  to  see  the 
nnage  of  that  perfect  knowledge  which  God  has  of  all  human  unfaithfulness.  To 
waste  the  goods  of  Gcd,  means,  after  having  taken  out  of  our  revenue  what  is  de- 
manded f  jr  our  maintenance,  instead  of  consecrating  the  remainder  to  the  service 
cf  God  and  of  His  cause,  squandering  it  on  our  pleasure,  or  hoaiding  it  up  fdr  our- 
selves. Here  wc  have  the  judgment  of  Jesus  on  that  manner  of  acting  which  appears 
to  us  so  natural  :  it  is  to  forget  that  we  are  but  stewards,  and  to  act  as  proprietors. 

The  s;iyiug  of  the  master  to  the  steward  (ver.  2)  does  not  include  a  call  to  clear 
himself;  it  is  a  sentence  of  deprivation.  His  guilt  seems  thoroughly  established. 
The  account  which  he  is  summoned  to  render  :j  the  inventory  of  the  properly  con- 
fided to  him,  to  be  transmitted  to  his  successor.  What  corresponds  to  this  depriva- 
tion is  evidently  the  event  by  which  God  takes  away  from  us  the  free  disposal  of  the 
goods  which  He  had  entrusted  to  us  here  below,  that  is,  death.  The  sentence  of  de- 
priv'ation  pronounced  beforehand  denotes  the  awakening  of  the  human  conscience 
when  it  is  penetrated  by  this  voice  of  God  :  "  Thou  must  die  ;  thou  shalt  give  ac- 
count." ^amjdai  is  stronger  than  xaXeOai  :  "  speaking  with  the  tone  of  a  master." 
In  the  phrase  zirouto,  ri  may  be  taken  as  an  exclamation  :  "How  happens  it 
that  I  hear  this  !"  or  interrogatively,  with  rovro  in  apposition  :  '  What  do  1  hear  of 
thee,  to  wit  this?"  The  accusation  which  we  should  expect  to  follow  is  understood. 
The  present  8vv>;i,\n  some  Alex.,  is  that  of  the  immediate  future. 

The  words  :  he  said  within  himself,  have  some  relation  to  those  of  15  :  17  :  when  he 
came  to  himself.  It  is  an  act  of  recollection  after  a  life  jnissed  in  insensibility.  The 
situation  of  the  man  is  critical.  Of  the  two  courses  which  present  themselves  to  his 
mind,  the  first,  digging,  and  the  .second,  begging,  are  equally  intolerable  to  him,  the 
one  physically,  the  othrr  morally.  All  at  once,  after  long  reflection,  he  exclaims,  as 
if  striking  his  forehead  :  I  have  it !  "Eyvoov,  1  have  come  to  S(e  (ver.  4).  He  starts 
from  the  sentence  as  from  a  fact  which  is  irrevocable  :  when  I  am  put  out.  But  has  he 
not  those  goods,  which  he  is  soon  to  hand  over  to  another,  in  his  hands  for  some  time 
yet  ?  May  he  not  hasten  to  \ise  them  in  such  a  way  that  he  shall  get  advantage  from 
them  when  he  shall  have  them  no  more,  by  making  sure,  for  example,  of  a  refuge 


384  COMMEXTAllY    O.N    ST.    LLKE. 

for  the  time  wLeu  be  shall  be  houseless?  When  man  thinks  seriously  of  his  ap- 
proaching death,  it  is  impossible  for  him  not  to  bo  alarjiied  at  that  deprivation  which 
awaits  him,  and  at  the  t:tale  of  nakeilness  which  will  follow.  Happy  if  in  th'.u  hour 
he  can  take  a  firm  resolution.  For  some  time  yet  he  has  in  liis  hands  the  goods  ot 
his  divine  Master,  which  death  is  about  to  wrest  from  him.  Will  it  not  be  wisdom 
on  his  part  so  to  use  them  during  the  brief  moments  when  he  has  them  3'ct  at  his  dis' 
posal,  that  they  shall  bear  interest  for  him  when  they  shall  be  his  no  more  ? 

Tills  steward,  wlio  will  soon  I>e  homeless,  knows  people  who  have  houses  :  "  Let 
us  then  make  friends  of  them  ;  and  when  I  shall  be  turned  to  the  street,  more  than 
•  one  house  shall  be  open  to  receive  me."  The  debtors,  whom  he  calls  to  him  with 
this  view,  are  merchants  who  are  in  the  habit  of  coming  to  get  their  supplies  from 
him,  getting  credit  probably  till  they  have  made  their  own  sales,  and  making  their 
payments  afterward.  The  Heb.  fjdzo'i,  the  bath,  contains  about  sixt}'  pints.  The 
gift  of  fifty  of  those  bdtlis  migiit  mount  up  to  the  sum  of  some  thousands  of  francs. 
The  Kopo?,  corns  (homer),  contains  ten  epltahs ;  and  the  value  of  twenty  homers  might 
rise  to  some  hundreds  of  francs.  The  difference  whicli  the  steward  makes  between 
the  two  gifts  is  remarkable  ;  it  contains  a  proof  of  discernment.  He  knows  his  men 
as  the  saying  is,  and  can  calculate  the  degree  of  liberality  "which  he  must  show  to 
each  to  gain  a  like  result,  that  is  to  say,  the  hospitality  he  expects  to  receive  from 
them  until  it  be  repaid.  Jesus  here  describes  alms  in  the  most  piquant  form.  Does 
a  rich  man,  for  example,  tear  up  the  bill  of  one  of  his  pour  debtors  ?  He  only  docs 
what  the  steward  does  here.  For  if  all  we  have  is  God's,  supposing  we  lend  any- 
thing, it  it  out  of  His  property  that  we  have  taken  it ;  and  if  we  give  it  away,  it  is 
with  Ilis  goods  {tlutt  which  is  another's,  ver.  12)  that  we  are  generous  in  so  acting. 
Beneficence  from  this  point  of  view  appears  as  a  sort  of  holy  unfaithfulness.  By 
means  of  it  we  prudently  make  for  ourselves,  like  the  steward,  personal  friends,  while 
we  use  wealth  which,  strictly  speaking,  is  that  of  our  Master.  But  differently  from 
the  stewarJ,  we  do  so  holily,  because  we  know  that  we  are  not  acting  without  the 
knowledge  and  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  divine  Owner,  but  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  are  entering  into  His  purposes  of  love,  and  that  He  rejoices  to  see  us  thus  using 
the  goods  which  He  has  committed  to  us  with  that  intention.  This  unfaithfulness  is 
faithfulness  (ver.  12). 

The  commendation  which  the  master  gives  the  steward  (ver.  8)  is  not  absolute. 
It  has  a  twofold  limitation,  first  in  the  word  r?/b  ci^iHLaZ,  "  tlie  unjust  steward,"  an 
epithet  which  he  must  certainlj''  put  in  the  master's  mouth,  and  then  in  the  explana- 
tory phrase  :  "  because  he  had  done  wisely."  The  meaning  of  the  commendation, 
then,  is  to  this  effect :  "  Undoubtedly  a  clever  man  !  It  is  only  to  be  regretted  that 
he  has  not  shown  as  much  probitj' as  prudence."  Thus,  even  though  beneficence 
chiefl}'  profits  him  who  exercises  it,  God  rejoices  to  see  this  virtue.  And  while  He 
has  no  favor  for  the  miser  who  hoards  His  goods,  or  for  the  egoist  wlio  squanders 
them.  He  approves  the  man  who  disposes  of  them  wisely  in  view  of  his  eternal  future. 
Weizsiicker  holds  that  the  eulogium  given  bj'  the  master  should  be  rejected  from  the 
parable.  Had  he  understood  it  better,  he  would  not  have  proposed  this  suppression, 
which  would  be  a  mutilation. 

It  is  with  the  second  part  of  ver.  8  that  the  application  begins.  "  Wisely:  Yes, 
adds  Jesus,  it  is  quite  true.  For  there  is  m.ore  wisdom  found  among  the  children  of 
this  world  in  their  mode  of  acting  toward  the  children  of  the  generation  to  which 
they  belong,  than  among  the  children  of  light  iu  their  conduct  toward  those  who 


(11 A 1'.    xvi.  :  l-l;].  385 

belong  to  theirs."  Aioov  ovro?,  this  age  (worlil)  ;  the  peridd  of  history  anterior  to 
the  fomiug  of  liie  kingdom  of  God.  ^wS  :  the  domain  of  tiie  liiglier  life  iuto  wliich 
Jesus  iulkoduces  1H.<  iliscipk"!>,  and  in  which  tlie  hrighlue.ss  of  (iiviue  wisdom  leigns 
Bulii  spiieies  liiive  Ihtir  own  popuhiliou,  and  every  inliabitaiit  of  tlie  one  or  the  otlici 
is  sunoiindetl  liy  a  certain  uuuiher  of  contemporaries  like  himself,  who  form  his 
yevFa  or  generation.  Those  belonging  (o  the  fiist  spiieie  use  every  means  for  Hair 
own  interest,  to  strengthen  the  bonds  which  unite  them  to  their  contemporaries  of 
the  same  stamp.  But  those  of  the  second  neglect  this  natural  measure  of  prudence. 
Tliey  f.^rget  to  use  God's  goods  to  form  bunds  of  love  to  the  couleniporaries  who 
siiaie  their  character,  and  who  might  one  day  give  Ihem  a  full  recompense,  whcji 
they  themselves  shall  want  everything  and  these  shall  have  ubunduuce.  Ver.  'J 
finishes  the  application.  The  words  :  and  1  oho  sai/  unto  yon,  correspond  to  these  : 
a)nl  the  Lord  commended  (ver.  8).  As  in  chap.  15  Jesus  had  identified  Himself  with 
the  Father  who  dwells  in  heaven,  so  in  this  saying  He  idenlifies  Himself  with  the  in- 
visible owner  of  all  things  :  and  I.  Jesus  means  :  Instead  of  hoarding  up  or  enjoyinpf 
—a  course  which  will  proiit  you  notiung  when,  on  the  other  side  of  the  tomb,  you 
•will  find  yourselves  in  your  turn  poor  and  destitute  of  everything— hasten  to  niak« 
for  yourselves,  with  the  goods  of  another  (God's),  personal  friends  (hxvroi?,  to  your- 
selves), who  shall  then  be  bound  to  you  by  gratitude,  and  share  with  you  their  well- 
being.  By  a  course  of  beneficence  make  haste  to  transform  iuto  a  bond  of  love  the 
base  metal  of  whicli  death  will  soon  deprive  you.  What  the  steward  did  in  his  sphere 
in  relation  to  people  of  his  own  quality,  see  that  you  do  in  yours  toward  those  who 
belong  like  you  to  the  world  to  come.  The  Ale.K.  reading  IxXltii}  {j-iai-ioovdi),  would 
signify:  "  that  when  money  shall  fail  you  (by  the  event  of  death)."  The  T.  R.  : 
kxXiTtijrs,  uhcn  ye  shall  fail,  refers  to  the  cessation  of  life,  embracing  privation  of 
everything  of  which  it  is  made  up. 

The  fi lends,  according  to  Meyer  and  Ewald,  are  the  angels,  who,  affected  by  the 
alms  of  the  beneficeut  man,  are  attached  to  him,  and  assist  him  at  the  time  of  hi.s 
passing  into  eternity.  But  according  to  the  parable,  the  friends  can  only  be  men 
who  have  been  succored  by  him  on  the  earth,  poor  here  below,  but  possessing  a  share 
in  the  everlasting  inheritance.  What  service  can  they  render  to  the  dying  disciple? 
Here  is  perhaps  the  most  diffirult  question  in  the  explanation  of  the  parable.  Love 
tcslitied  and  experienced  cstablislies  between  beings  a  strict  moral  unity.  This  is 
clearly  seen  in  the  relation  between  Jesus  and  men.  May  not  the  disciple  who 
reaches  heaven  without  having  gained  here  below  the  degree  of  development  which 
is  the  condition  of  full  communion  with  God,  receive  the  increase  of  spiritual  life, 
which  is  yet  wanting  to  him,  by  means  of  tlu.se grateful  spirits  with  whom  he  shared 
his  lempoial  goods  here  below  ?  (Corup.  Rom.  15  :  27  and  1  Cor.  9  :  11.)  Do  we  not 
already  see  on  the  earth  the  poor  Christian,  who  is  assisted  by  a  humane,  but  in  u 
riligious  point  of  view  defective,  rich  man,  by  his  prayers,  by  the  oveillowingof  his 
gratitude,  and  the  editic-ition  which  he  aflords  him,  requiting  his  benefactor  infinitely 
moi'e  and  belter  than  he  receives  from  him  V  Almsgiving  is  thus  found  to  be  the  mr.st 
prudent  investment  ;  for  the  communication  of  love  once  established  by  its  means, 
enables  him  who  i)ractise»5  it  to  enjoj'  provisionally  the  benefits  of  a  spiritual  state  far 
superior  to  that  which  he  has  himself  reached.  A  simdar  thought  is  found  in  14  :  l;3, 
14.  But  if  this  explanation  seems  to  leave  something  to  desire,  we  must  fall  back  on 
sayings  such  as  these  :  "  He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor,  lendelh  unit)  the  Lord." 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have 


386  COMMENTAllY    OX   tiT.  LIKE. 

done  it  unto  me."  It  is  Jesus,  it  is  God  Himself,  "wlio  become  our  debtors  by  the 
assistance  v/hicli  we  grant  to  those  who  are  the  objects  of  their  love.  And  would 
such  friends  be  useless  in  the  hour  of  our  dissolution  ?  To  receive  is  not  to  intro- 
duce. On  the  contrary,  the  first  of  these  two  terms  assumes  that  admission  is  already 
adjudged.  Faith,  which  alone  opens  heaven,  is  supposed  in  the  hearers  whom  Jesus 
is  addressing  in  the  parable  :  they  are  disciples,  ver.  1.  Conversion,  the  fruit  of 
failh,  is  er£ually  implied,  vers.  3  and  4.  And  since  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  de- 
scribes has  chosen  believers  as  the  special  objects  of  his  liberality,  he  must  to  a  cer- 
tain degree  be  a  l)eliever  himself. 

The  poetical  expression  eternal  habitations  (tents)  is  borrowed  from  patriarchal 
history.  Tlie  tents  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  under  the  oaks  of  Mamre  are  transferred 
in  thought  to  tlie  life  to  come,  which  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a  glorified 
Canaan.  What  is  the  future  of  poetry  but  the  past  idealized  ?  It  is  less  natural  to 
think,  with  Meyer,  of  the  tents  of  Israel  in  the  desert.  We  may  here  compare  the 
TtoXXal  f-iovai,  the  many  viansujns,  in  the  Father's  house,  John  14  : 3.  There  re- 
mains to  be  explained  the  phrase  6  i.icxi.ioovd.i  r?/S  dSixiai,  the  mammon  of  unrigld- 
fousness.  The  word  jua/ioovdi  is  not,  as  has  often  been  said,  the  name  of  an  oriental 
divinity,  the  god  of  mone^'.  It  denotes,  in  Syriac  and  Phosniciau,  money  itself  (see 
Bleek  on  Matt.  6  .  24).  The  Aramaic  name  is  ]"|J3q,  and,  with  the  article,  jsjj]»2J2. 
The  epithet  umigJdeous  is  taken  by  many  commentators  simply  1o  mean,  that  the  ac- 
quisition of  fortune  is  most  frequently  tainted  with  sin  ;  according  to  Bleek  and 
others,  that  sin  readily  attaches  to  the  administration  of  it.  But  these  are  only  acci- 
dental circumstances  ;  the  context  points  to  a  more  satisfactory  explanation.  The 
ear  of  Jesus  must  have  been  constantly  offended  with  that  sort  of  leckless  laniruage 
in  which  men  indulge  without  scruple  :  vii/  fortune,  my  lands,  ^ny  house.  He  who 
felt  to  the  (juiok  man's  dependence  on  God,  saw  tliat  there  was  a  usurpation  in  this 
idea  of  ownership,  a  forgetfulness  of  liie  true  proprietor  ;  on  hearing  such  language, 
He  seemed  to  see  the  fanner  plajdng  the  landlord.  It  is  this  sin,  of  which  the  natural 
man  is  profoundly  unconscious,  which  He  lays  bare  in  this  whole  parable,  and  which 
He  specially  designates  b}^  this  expression  the  unrighteous  Mammon.  The  two,  riji 
u^LKiar,  vers.  8  and  9,  correspond  exactly,  and  mutually  explain  one  another.  It  is 
theiefore  false  to  see  in  this  epithet,  with  De  Wette,  the  Tiibiugen  School,  Renan, 
etc.,  a  condemnation  of  property  as  such.  Man's  sin  does  not  consist  in  being,  as 
one  invested  with  earthly  property,  the  steward  of  God,  but  in  forgetting  that  he  is  so 
(parable  following). 

There  is  no  thought  more  fitted  than  that  of  this  parable,  on  the  one  hand,  to  un- 
dermine the  idea  of  merit  belonging  to  almsgiving  (what  merit  could  be  got  out  of 
that  which  is  another's?),  and  on  the  other,  to  eucourage  us  in  the  practice  of  that 
virtue  which  assures  us  of  friends  and  protectors  for  the  grave  moment  of  our  pass- 
in;;  into  the  world  to  come.  What  on  the  part  of  the  steward  was  only  wise  unfaith- 
fiduess,  becomes  wise  faithfulness  in  the  servant  of  Jesus  who  acts  on  acquaintance 
with  principle.  It  dare  not  be  said  that  Jesus  had  wit  ;  but  if  one  could  be  tempted 
tw  use  the  expression  at  all,  it  would  be  here. 

Of  the  many  explanations  of  this  parable  which  have  been  proposed,  Ave  shall 
merely  quote  some  of  the  most  prominent.  Schleiermaclier  takes  the  master  to  be 
the  Roman  knights  who  farmed  the  taxes  of  Judiea,  and  sublet  them  to  needy  publi- 
cans ;  the  steward,  to  be  the  publicans  whom  Jesus  exhorted  to  expend  on  their 
countrymen  the  goods  of  which  they  cleverly  cheated  those  great  foreigners.     Henri 


CHAi'.   XVI.  :  I(,)-i;i.  387 

Bauer  sees  in  the  master  the  Israelilish  authorities,  uud  in  the  unfaithful  steward  llio 
Judeo-Chrislians,  who,  without  liouhliug  tliiinselvis  about  theocratic  prejudices, 
sliuuld  strive  to  coniiuuuicale  to  the  Genlik-s  the  beui-tils  of  the  coveuaut.  Accord- 
ing to  Wcizsjicker  in  the  original  thoiigiit  of  tiie  parable  the  steward  represented  a 
Roman  magistiate.  who,  to  the  detriment  of  the  Jews,  had  been  ynilly  of  maiadmin- 
istration,  but  who  thereafter  strives  to  make  amends  by  showing  I  hem  gentleness  and 
liberality.  No  womhr  that  from  tins  point  of  view  the  critic  kuo\\s  not  what  t.) 
make  of  the  etdogiuni  passed  by  the  master  on  his  steward  !  But  according  to  him, 
the  sense  and  tlie  im.ige  were  transformed,  and  the  description  became  in  the  hands  of 
Luke  an  encouragement  to  rich  and  unbelieving  Jews  to  merit  heaven  by  doing  good 
to  poor  Christians.  The  arbitrary  and  forced  character  of  those  explanations  is  clear 
as  the  day,  and  they  need  no  detailed  refutation.  We  are  happy  that  we  can  agree, 
al  least  for  once,  wiih  Ililgeufeld,  both  in  the  general  interpretation  of  the  parable 
and  in  the  explanation  of  the  sayings  which  follow  ("  Die  Evangel,"  p.  IDO). 

Vers  lO-lo.*  "  He  that  is  faithfid  in  tiiat  which  is  least,  is  faithful  also  in  much  ; 
and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least,  is  unjust  also  in  much.  11.  If  therefore  ye  have 
niit  been  faithful  in  the  unrighteous  mammon,  who  will  commit  to  your  trust  tliat 
which  is  true  ?  12.  And  if  ye  have  not  been  faithful  in  that  which  is  another  man's, 
wiro  shall  give  you  that  which  is  your  own  ?  13.  No  servant  can  serve  two  masters  : 
for  either  he  will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other  ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one, 
and  despise  the  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon."  Many  regaid  these  re- 
tleclions  as  arbitrarily  placed  here  by  Luke.  But  whatever  Bleek  may  say,  is  it  not 
just  the  manner  in  wdiich  we  constitute  ourselves  proprietors  of  our  earthly  goods, 
whicii  leads  U!!  to  make  a  use  of  them  which  is  contrary  to  their  true  destination? 
The  following  piece,  therefore,  derives  its  explanation  from  the  parable,  and  is  di- 
rectly connected  with  it.  Ver.  12  (roi  (i/*v.07p/a;)  would  even  be  unintelligible  apart 
from  it.  Yer.  10  is  a  comparison  borrowed  from  common  life.  From  the  expeiience 
expressed  in  the  two  parallel  propositions  of  this  verse,  it  follows  that  a  master  does 
not  think  of  elevating  to  a  higher  position  the  servant  who  has  abused  his  confidence 
in  matters  of  less  importance.     Faithful  toward  the  master,  unjust  toward  men. 

The  application  of  this  rule  of  conduct  to  believers,  vers.  11,  12.  The  vnrigfiteous 
mammon  is  God's  money,  which  man  unjustly  takes  as  his  own.  Faithfulness  would 
have  implied,  above  all,  the  employment  of  those  goods  in  the  service  of  God  ;  but 
our  deprivation  once  pronounced  (death),  it  implies  their  employment  in  our  interest 
rightly  understood  by  means  of  beneficence.  Through  lack  of  this  fidelity  or  wis- 
dom, we  establish  our  own  incapacity  to  administer  better  goods  if  they  were  confided 
to  us  ;  therefore  God  will  not  commit  them  to  us.  Those  goods  are  called  to  hhjfjivov, 
the  true  good,  that  which  corresponds  really  to  the  idea  of  good.  The  contrast  has 
misled  several  commentators  to  give  to  the  word  uthKo^  the  meaning  of  deceitful. 
This  is  to  confound  the  word  d/i^Oii-oS  with  (i7r]fjiji  (vemcioiis).  The  real  good  is  that 
•which  can  in  no  case  he  changed  to  its  opposite.  It  is  not  so  with  money,  which  is  at 
best  a  provisional  good,  and  may  even  be  a  source  of  evil.  This  is  the  application  of 
10a  /  ver.  12  is  that  of  10b.  Earthly  goods  are  called  another's  good,  that  is  to  say,  a 
good  which  strictly  belongs  to  another  than  ourselves  (God).  As  it  is  fnitlifidhesa  to 
God,  so  it  \s  justice  to  man,  to  di^p^-se  of  them  with  a  view  to  our  poor  neighbor. 
Tliat  which  is  our  oicn  denotes  the  good  for  which  we  are  essentially  fitted,  which  is 

*  Yer.  12.  B.  L.,  to  nfiETepov  instead  of  to  vfiiTepov. 


388  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

tbe  normal  completion  of  our  beinff,  the  Divine  Spirit  become  our  own  spirit  by  entire 
assimilation,  or  in  tlie  words  of  Jesus,  the  kingdom  prepared  for  us  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  Our  Lord's  thought  is  therefore  this  :  God  commits  to  man,  during  hia 
earthly  sojourn  in  the  state  of  probation,  goods  belonging  to  Him,  which  are  of  less 
value  (earthly  things)  ;  and  the  use,  fathful  or  unfaithful,  just  or  unjust,  which  we 
malie  of  these  settles  the  question  whether  our  true  patrimony  (the  goods  of  the  Spirit, 
of  which  tlie  believer  himself  receives  only  the  earnest  liere  below)  shall  or  shall  not 
be  granted  to  him  al)ove.  Like  a  rich  father,  who  should  trust  his  son  with  a  domain 
of  little  value,  that  he  might  be  trained  later  in  life  to  manage  the  whole  of  his  inher- 
itance, thus  putting  his  character  to  the  proof,  so  God  exposes  external  seeming  goods 
of  no  value  to  the  thousand  abuses  of  our  unskilful  administration  here  below,  that 
from  the  use  which  we  make  of  them  there  may  one  day  be  determined  for  each  of 
us  whether  we  shall  be  put  in  possession,  or  whether  we  shall  be  deprived  of  our  true 
eternal  heritage— the  good  which  corresponds  to  our  inmost  nature.  The  entire  phi- 
losophj'  of  our  terrestrial  existence  is  contained  in  these  words. 

Ver.  18,  which  closes  this  piece,  is  stdl  connected  with  the  image  of  the  parable  ; 
tlie  steward  had  two  masters,  whose  service  he  could  not  succeed  iu  reconciling,  the 
owner  of  the  revenue  which  he  was  managing,  and  mone,y,  which  he  was  woiship- 
piug.  The  two  parallel  propositions  of  this  verse  are  usually  regarded  as  identical  in 
meaning  and  as  differing  only  in  the  position  assigned  to  each  of  the  two  masters  suc' 
cessively  as  the  objects  of  the  two  opposite  feelings.  But  Bleek  justly  observes,  that 
the  absence  of  the  article  before  evor  in  the  second  proposition  seems  to  forbid  our  tak- 
ing this  pronoun  as  tlie  simple  repetition  of  the  preceding  rm  iva  in  the  first  ;  he 
therefore  gives  it  a  more  general  sense,  the  one  or  tlie  other  of  the  two  preceding,  and 
places  the  whole  difference  between  the  two  parallel  propositions  in  the  graduated 
meaning  of  the  different  verbs  employed,  Jiolding  to  being  less  strong  tlian  loving,  and 
despising  less  strong  than  hating.  Thus  :  "  He  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other  ; 
or  at  least,  he  will  hold  more  either  to  the  one  or  other  of  the  two,  which  will  neces- 
sarily lead  him  to  neglect  the  service  of  the  other."  It  makes  no  material  difference. 
This  veise,  whatever  the  same  iearned  critic  muy  say,  concludes  this  discourse  per- 
fectly, and  forms  the  transition  to  the  following  piece,  in  which  we  find  a  sincere 
worshipper  of  Jeliuvuh  perishing  because  he  has  practically  made  money  his  God. 
Tlie  place  which  this  verse  occupies  in  Matthew  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (6  :  24) 
is  also  suitable,  but  somewhat  uncertain,  like  that  of  the  whole  piece  of  which  it 
forms  part. 

M.  Vers.  14-31.  The  Wicked  Rich  Man.  The  introduction  (vers.  14-18)  is  com- 
posed of  a  series  of  sayings  which  at  first  sight  appear  to  have  no  connection  with 
one  another.  Holtzmann  thinks  that  Luke  collects  here  at  random  sayings  scattered 
throughout  the  Logia,  for  which  till  now  he  had  not  found  any  prace.  But  there  are 
only  two  leading  ideas  in  this  introduction  ;  the  rejection  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the 
permanence  of  the  law.  Now  these  are  precisely  the  two  ideas  wh'ch  are  exhibited  in  - 
action  in  the  following  parable  ;  the  one  in  the  condemnation  of  the  wicked  rich  man, 
that  faithful  Pharisee  ("  father  Abraham,"  vers.  24,  27,  30) ;  the  other  in  the  manner 
in  which  Abraham  asserts,  even  in  Hades,  the  imperishable  value  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  The  relation  between  these  tv/o  essential  ideas  of  the  introduction  and  of 
the  parable  is  this  ;  the  law  on  which  the  Pharisees  staked  their  credit  will  neverthe- 
less be  the  instrument  of  thfir  eternal  condemnation  This  is  exactly  what  Jesus  says 
to  the  Jews,  John  5  :  45  :  "  There  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom  ye 


cuAi'.   XVI.  :  1:;-1S.  389 

trust."  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  this  introduction,  vers.  14-18,  has  a 
very  fragineulary  chiiracter.  It  contains  the  elcmenls  of  a  discourse,  rather  than  the 
discourse  itself.  But  this  very  fact  provLS  that  St.  Luke  lias  not  taken  the  lilieriy 
of  composing  this  iutroduction  aibitiarily  aud  independently  of  his  sources.  W'liat 
hislurian  would  compose  in  such  a  manner?  A  discourse  invented  by  ihe  evanjiclist 
^vould  not  have  failed  to  pnsent  an  evident  logical  connection,  as  much  as  the  dis- 
courses which  Livy  or  Xcnophnn  put  into  the  mouth  of  their  heroes.  The  very 
hrokenness  sullices  to  prove  that  the  discourse  was  really  held,  and  existed  i)reviously 
to  this  narrative. 

Vers.  14  and  15.*  "  The  Pharisees  also,  who  were  covetous,  heard  all  these  things  ; 
and  they  derided  Illm.  15.  And  He  said  unto  them,  Ye  are  they  which  justify  your- 
selves before  men  ;  but  God  knoweth  your  hearts  :  for  that  which  is  highly  esteemed 
among  men  is  at)oudnation  in  the  sight  of  God."  The  last  words  of  Jesus  on  the 
impossibility  of  combining  the  service  of  God  and  mammon,  fell  full  on  the  heads  of 
the  Pharisees,  those  pretended  servants  of  Jehovah,  who  nevertheless  in  their  lives 
showed  themselves  such  zealous  worshippers  of  riches  (Matt.  G,  transition  between 
vers.  18,  ID).  Ilence  their  sneers  {tHuvHrr/fji^eiv).  The  poverty  of  Jesus  Himself 
was  perhaps  the  theme  of  their  derision  :  "It  is  easy  to  speak  of  money  with  such  dis- 
dain .  .  .  when  one  is  destitute  as  thou  art. "  In  Ilis  answer  (ver.  15),  Jesus  gives 
them  to  understand  that  the  judgment  of  God  is  regulated  by  another  standard  than 
that  of  the  men  who  are  at  their  side.  It  is  at  the  heart  that  God  looks  ;  and  the 
reign  of  a  single  passion,  such  as  that  avarice  which  devours  them,  suffices  to  render 
odious  in  His  eyes  that  whole  righteousness  of  outward  observances  which  gains  for 
them  the  favor  of  the  world.  The  phrase  :  Te  are  they  which  jm^ttfy  yourselves,  signi- 
fies, "  3'our  business  is  to  pass  yourselves  off  as  righteous."  The  on,  for,  is  ex- 
plained by  the  idea  of  condemnation,  which  here  attaches  to  that  of  k'towledge  :  "  God 
knows  you  [and  rejects  you],  for  .  .  ."  'Er  dvOpamoi?,  on  the  part  of  men,  nuiy 
mean  :  amony  men,  or  in  the  judgment  of  men.  In  connection  with  the  idea  of  being 
highly  esteemed,  those  two  ideas  are  combined.  Jesus  means  :  "  What  men  extol 
aud  glorifj',  consecpiently  the  and)itious,  who,  like  you,  by  one  means  or  another 
push  themselves  into  the  front  rank,  become  an  object  of  abomination  to  God. "  For 
all  glorification  of  man  rests  on  falsehood.  God  alone  is  great  and  deserving  to  be 
praised. 

What  had  diiefly  irritated  the  Pharisees  in  the  preceding  was  the  spiritual  sense 
in  which  Jesus  uiuierstood  the  law,  unveiling  under  their  airs  of  sanctity  the  stain  of 
shameful  avarice  which  defiled  them.  This  idea  affords  the  point  of  connection  for 
what  follows  (vers.  lG-18). 

Vers.  lO-lS.f  "  The  law  aiul  the  prophets  were  until  John  :  since  that  time  the 
kingdom  of  G<k1  is  preached,  and  every  man  presselh  into  it.  17.  But  it  is  easier  for 
heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  for  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail.  18.  Whosoever 
putlelh  away  his  wife,  and  marrielh  another,  committeth  adultery  :  and  whosoever 
marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  from  her  husband  committeth  adultery."  But,  adds 
Jesus  (ver.  IG),  a  new  era  is  beginning,  and  with  it  your  usurped  dominion  comes  to 
an  end.     Since  the  time  of  John,  that  law  and  those  prophets  which  you  have  made 

*  Ver.  14.  5^.  B.  D.  L.  R.  .3  Mnn.  Syr"''.  It.  omit  kcxi  before  oi  <Papi6aiot.  Ver. 
15.  11  Mjj.  70  Jinn,  omit  £6riv  after  Heov. 

f  Ver.  IG.  !*.  B.  L.  R.  X.  some  ^Inn..  /iFXpi  instead  of  fojs  before  looavvov. 
Ver.  18.  B.  D.  L,  some  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  nai  between  hlxi  and  o. 


390  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

your  pedestal  iu  Israel  are  replaced  by  a  new  dispensation.  To  the  religious  aristoc- 
lacy  which  you  had  succeeded  iu  founding  there  follows  a  kingdom  of  God  equally 
open  lo  every  man  {itdi)  ;  all  have  access  to  it  as  well  as  you  !  Bicc^e6'^)LXi  should  not 
be  taken  in  the  passive  sense,  as  Hilgenfeld  would  have  it :  "  Every  man  is  con- 
strained by  the  gospel,"  but  as  a  middle,  in  the  sense  of  to  hasten,  to  throw  them- 
selves. There  is,  as  it  were,  a  dense  crowd  pressing  through  the  gate  which  is  now 
open,  and  every  one,  even  the  lowest  of  the  publii-ans,  is  free  to  enter.  Recall  here 
the  parables  of  chap.  15.  But  while  this  repentant  crowd  penetrates  into  the  king- 
dom (7  :  29),  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  remain  without,  like  tiie  elder  son  in  the  pre- 
ceding parable.  Let  them  beware,  however  !  That  legal  system  on  which  they  have 
founded  their  throne  in  Israel  is  about  to  crumble  to  pieces  (ver.  16) ;  while  the  law 
itself,  which  they  violate  at  the  very  moment  they  make  it  their  boast,  shall  remain 
as  the  eternal  expression  of  divine  holiness  and  as  the  dreadful  standard  by  which 
they  shall  be  judged  (ver.  17).  The  ds  is  adversative  :  hut.  It  indicates  the  contrast 
between  the  end  of  the  legal  economy  and  the  permanence  of  the  law.  This  contrast 
reminds  us  of  the  antitheses  of  Malt.  5  of  which  this  saying  is  a  sort  of  summary  : 
"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  .  .  .;  but  I  say  unto  you  .  .  ."  Jesus  only 
abolishes  the  law  by  fulfilling  it  and  confirming  it  spiiitually.  Kepaia,  dimmutive  of 
xepai,  horn,  denrUes  the  small  lines  or  hooks  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  The  least  ele- 
ment of  divine  holiness  which  the  law  contains  has  more  reality  and  durability  than 
the  whole  visible  universe. 

The  two  verses,  IG  and  17,  are  put  by  Matthew  iu  the  discourse  of  Jesus  regarding 
John  the  Baptist,  11  :  12,  13,  inversely  in  point  of  order.  We  can  easily  understand 
how  the  mention  of  John  the  Baptist,  ver.  16,  led  Matthew  to  insert  this  sa3'ing  in 
the  discourse  which  Jesus  pronounced  on  His  forerunner.  We  have  seen  that  in 
that  same  discourse,  as  given  by  Luke  (chap.  7),  this  declaration  was  with  great 
advantage  replaced  by  a  somewhat  different  saying,  vers.  29,  80  ;  and  if,  as  Bleek 
owns  (i.  p.  454,  et  seq.),  Luke  decidedly  deserves  the  preference  as  to  the  tenor  of  the 
words,  it  will  doubtless  be  the  same  as  to  the  place  which  he  assigns  them  ;  for  it  is 
in  general  on  this  second  point  that  hi:^  superiority  appears. 

Ver.  18.  Not  only  in  spile  of  the  abolition  of  the  legal  form  will  the  law  continue 
in  its  substance  ;  but  if  this  substance  even  comes  to  be  modified  in  the  new  ecoa- 
omy,  it  will  be  in  the  direction  of  still  greater  severity.  Jesus  gives  as  an  example 
the  law  of  divorce.  This  same  idea  meets  us.  Matt.  :  31,  32  ;  it  tallies  fully  with 
the  meaning  of  the  declaration.  Matt.  19  :  3,  et  seq.,  Mark  10  :  2,  et  seq.,  which  was 
uttered  in  this  same  journey,  and  almost  at  the  same  period.  Jesus  explains  to  the 
same  class  of  hearers  as  in  our  passage,  to  the  Pharisees  namely,  that  if  Moses  author- 
ized divorce,  merely  confining  himself  to  guard  it  by  some  restrictions,  there  was  a 
forsaking  for  a  time  of  the  true  moral  point  of  view  already  proclaimed  Gen.  2,  and 
which  He,  Jesus,  came  to  re-establish  iu  its  purity.  Luke  and  ]\Iatthew  do  not 
speak  of  the  case  of  voluntary  separation  on  the  part  of  the  woman  referred  to  by 
Mark  (10  :  12)  and  Paul  (1  Cor.  7  :  10,  11).  And  Paul  does  not  expressly  interdict 
the  divorced  man,  as  Mark  does,  from  contracting  a  second  marriage.  Those  shades 
in  such  a  precept  cannot  be  voluntary  ;  they  represent  natural  variations  due  to  tra- 
dition (Syn.)  or  to  the  nature  of  the  context  (Paul).  The  parallels  quoted  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  the  real  connection  of  ver.  18  with  ver.  17.  The  asyndeton  between  those 
two  verses  is  explained  by  the  fragmentary  character  of  Luke's  report.  What 
remains  to  us  of  this  discourse  resembles  the  peaks  of  a  mountain  chain,  the  base  of 


CHAP.   XVI.  :  IS.  301 

•which  is  coucealeil  from  view,  and  must  be  reconstructed  by  reflection.  As  to  the 
compiler,  he  has  evidently  refrained  from  fiUinj^  up  at  his  own  hand  the  blanks  in  his 
document.  The  disjointed  character  of  this  account  has  been  turned  into  an  accusa- 
tion a,ij;ainst  him  ;  but  it  ought  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  his  conscientious 
fidelity. 

Does  tlie  context,  as  we  have  just  established  it.  leave  anything  to  be  desired  ? 
Has  Hultzmann  ground  for  regarding  this  piece  as  a  collection  of  sentences  thrown 
together  at  rauilom  V  Or  is  it  necessary,  in  oider  to  justify  ver.  18,  to  regard  it,  with 
^ehleiermaeher,  as  an  allusion  to  I  lie  divorce  of  Herod  Autipas  from  the  daughter  of 
Aretas,  and  his  unlawful  marriage  with  Ilerodias — a  crime  which  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  had  not  the  courage  to  condemn  like  John  the  Baptist?  Or,  finally,  nuist 
Ave,  with  Olshausen,  take  the  idea  of  divorce  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  apply  it  to  the 
emancipation  of  believers  tiom  the  yoke  of  the  law,  agreeably  to  Rom.  7  :  1,  et  seq.  '! 
No  ;  the  explanation  which  we  have  given,  as  well  as  the  autiienlicity  of  the  context, 
appear  to  be  sutlicientlv  established  by  the  parallels  quoted  (Matt.  5  :  18,  19  and  SI, 
•S2,  19  :  3,  et  srq.  ;  Alark  10  :  2,  et  ixq.). 

The  saying  of  ver.  17,  proclaiming  the  eternal  duration  of  the  law,  has  appeared 
to  some  critics  incompatible  with  the  Pauline  character  of  Luke's  Gospel.  Hilgcn- 
feld  alleges  that  the  canonical  text  of  Luke  is  falsifieil,  and  that  the  true  original  form 
of  this  passage,  as  well  as  of  many  others,  has  been  preserved  by  Maicion,  who 
reads:  "It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  carlh  to  pass,  than  one  \\{{]Qof  my  sayirqis  \.o 
fail."  But,  1.  The  manifest  incompatiliility  of  our  canonical  text  with  Marcion's 
system  renders  it,  on  the  contrary-,  very  prolnible  that  it  was  Marcion  who  in  this 
case,  as  in  so  many  others,  accommodated  the  text  to  his  dogmatic  point  of  view. 
2.  Could  Jesus  have  applied  the  word  tittle  to  His  own  sayings  before  they  had  been 
expressed  in  writing?  'd.  The  parallel,  Matt.  5  :  18,  proves  that  the  expression  in  its 
original  meaning  really  applied  to  the  law.  If  siicli  was  the  primary  applicalion  in 
the  mind  ot  Jesus,  would  it  ntjt  be  extumel}'  suipiising  if,  alter  an  earlier  Luke  had 
departed  from  it.  the  more  modern  Lid<e  should  have  reverted  to  it?  Besides,  this 
supposition,  combated  by  Zeller,  is  wiihdrawu  by  Volkmar,  whr)  first  gave  it  forth 
(■'  Die  Evangel.,"  p.  481).  Zeller,  however,  supjioses  that  the  evangelist,  fitling  the 
anti-Pauline  tendency  of  this  saying,  designedly  inclosed  it  between  two  others, 
intended  to  show  the  reader  that  it  was  not  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense.  But 
would  it  not  have  !)een  far  simpler  to  omit  it  altogether  ?  And  does  not  so  much 
artifice  contrast  with  the  simplicitv  of  our  Gospels? 

According  to  the  Talmud,  Tract.  Gittin  (ix.  10),  Hillel,  the  grandfather  of  Gama- 
liel, the  man  whom  our  moderns  would  adopt  as  the  master  of  Jesus  Christ,  taught 
that  the  husband  is  entitled  to  put  away  his  wife  when  she  burns  his  dinner.*  We 
can  understand  how,  in  view  of  such  pharisaic  teachings,  Jesus  felt  the  need  of  pro- 
testing, not  onlv  by  affirming  the  maintenance  of  moral  obligation  as  contained  in  the 
law,  l)ut  even  bs'  announcing  tiiat  the  new  doctrine  would  in  this  respect  exceed  the 
severity  of  the  old,  and  would  conclusively  raise  the  moral  obligation  to  the  height  of 
the  ideal.  The  declaration  of  Jesus,  ver.  17,  about  the  maintenance  of  the  law,  is, 
besides,  perfectly  at  one  with  St.  Paul's  view  (1  Cor.  7  :  19)  :  "  The  keeping  of  the 
commandments  of  God  is  everything  ;"  comp.  Rom.  2  :  13  :  "As  many  as  have 
sinned  under  the  law,  shall  be  judged  l)y  the  law." 

On  the  basis  of  this  introduction,  announcing  to  the  Pharisees  the  end  of  their 
paraded  show  of  righteousness  and  the  advent  of  real  holiness,  there  rises  by  way 
of  example  the  following  parable.  To  the  words  of  ver.  15,  tJiat  which  is  higJily  esteenud 
ciinon'jmcn,  there  corresponds  the  representation  of  the sumi)tui)Us and  brilliant  life  of 
the  rich  man  ;  to  the  predicate,  w  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God  (same  verse)  the 
description  of  his  punishment  in  Hades  ;  to  the  declaration  of  ver.  17  regarding  the 
permanence  of  the  law,  the  reply  of  Abraham  :  t/iey  have  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

*  "  Jesus  und  Hillel,"  1867,  by  Delitzsch,  p.  27.  where  an  answer  is  given  to  the 
forced  interpretation  which  modem  Jews  give  of  this  saying. 


392  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

Vers.  19-31.  The  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Bich  Man.— li  is  composed  of  two  princi- 
pal scenes,  wljicli  correspond  so  exactly  wilh  one  another,  thai  in  Ibeir  cuiiespond- 
ence  we  must  seek  the  very  idea  of  the  paiable  ;  these  are,  the  scene  on  the  eailh 
(vers.  19-22),  and  that  in  Hades  (vers.  23-81). 

The  terrestrial  scene,  vers.  19-22.*  It  embraces  four  poitrailures  which,  taken 
two  and  two,  form  counterparts  of  one  another  :  the  life  of  the  rich  man,  ver.  19, 
and  that  of  the  poor  man,  vers.  20,  21  ;  then  tiie  death  of  the  former,  ver.  22a,  and 
that  of  the  latter,  ver.  22b.  The  description  of  the  rich  man's  life  presents  two  prom- 
inent features  :  the  magnificence  of  his  dress — 7top<pvpa,  the  upper  dress,  a  wocllen 
garment  dyed  purple,  and  fJvddoi,  the  under  garment,  a  tunic  of  fine  linen  ;  next, 
the  sumptuousness  of  his  habitual  style  of  living — a  splendid  banquet  daily.  Tliis 
description  of  tlie  life  of  the  rich  of  that  day  applied  to  the  Jews  as  well  as  to  the 
Gentiles.  Nay,  among  the  former,  who  sometimes  regarded  wealth  as  a  sign  of  di- 
vine blessing,  the  enjoyments  of  that  privileged  state  must  have  been  indulged  with 
so  much  the  less  scruple  ;  so  the  Pharisees  in  particular  seem  to  have  done  (20  :  46, 
47).  After  the  rich  man,  who  first  claims  attention,  our  eyes  are  carried  to  the  un- 
happy man  laid  at  the  entrance  of  his  house,  vers.  20  and  21.  The  Greek  name 
Lazarus  does  not  come,  as  some  have  thought,  from  Lo-eser,  no  help,  but  hoin.  El-ezer, 
God  helps  ;  whence  the  form  Eleazar,  abbreviated  by  the  Rabbins  into  Leazar  ;  and 
hence  Lazarus.  This  name,  according  to  John  11,  was  common  among  the  Jews. 
As  this  is  the  only  case  in  which  Jesus  designates  one  of  the  personages  of  a  parable 
by  his  name,  this  peculiarity  must  have  a  significance  in  the  accoimt.  It  is  intended, 
doubtless,  as  the  name  so  often  was  among  the  Jews,  to  describe  tbe  character  of  him 
who  bears  it.  By  this  name,  then,  Jesus  makes  this  persunage  the  representation 
of  that  class  of  the  Israelitish  people  which  formed  the  opposite  extreme  of  Pharisa- 
ism— poor  ones  whose  confidence  was  in  God  alone,  the  Aniim  of  the  O.  T.,  the 
pious  indigent. 

The  gateway  at  the  entrance  of  which  he  was  laid  is  that  which  conducts  in  East- 
ern houses  from  the  outside  to  the  first  court.  The  word  e3i3?.yTo,  was  tJtnncn,  ex- 
presses the  heedlessness  with  which  he  was  laid  down  there  and  abandoned  to  the 
care  of  those  who  were  constantly  going  and  coming  about  this  great  house.  The 
crumbs  denote  the  remains  of  the  meal  which  the  servants  would  sometmies  throw  to 
him,  but  which  were  not  enough  to  satisfy  him.  The  omission  of  the  words  tuv 
tjjiXiuv  by  some  Alex,  arises  from  the  confusion  of  the  two  tuv  by  an  ancient  copyist ; 
these  words  are  wrongly  rejected  by  Tischendorf  ;  they  are  to  be  preserved  as  the 
counterpart  of  the  drop  of  water,  ver.  24.  The  nakedness  of  the  poor  man  contrasts 
with  the  rich  man's  elaborate  toilet,  as  those  crumbs  do  with  his  banquets.  The 
words  aXXd  nai,  moreover,  which  indicate  a  higher  degree  of  endurance,  forbid  us 
to  regard  the  feature  of  the  dogs  licking  the  sores  of  Lazarus  as  an  alleviation  of  his 
miseries.  Besides,  this  animal  is  never  represented  in  the  Bible,  nor  among  the  Ori- 
entals in  general,  in  a  favorable  light.  The  licking  of  the  poor  man's  uubandiiged 
wounds  by  those  unclean  animals  as  they  passed,  is  the  last  stroke  of  the  picture  of 
his  nakedness  and  forsakenness. 

To  the  contract  between  the  two  lives  there  soon  succeeds  that  between  the  two 
deaths,  ver.  22,  which  introduces  the  contrast  between  the  two  states  in  the  life  to 


ii.  B 


*  Ver.  20.    ».  B.  D.  L.  X.  omit  r}v  after  rz?  and  o?  before  eftE^XTjro.     Ver.  21 
B.  L.  It*''i.  omit  Tcov  ibixiooy- 


CHAP.   XVI.  :  19-31.  393 

come.  Lazarus  dies  first,  exbausted  by  privalious  and  siilTerings.  That  very  moment 
he  finds  in  ilie  lieaveuly  world  the  syinpalliy  wliicli  was  relused  to  him  liere  below. 
lu  Jewish  ihiology,  liie  augels  are  charged  with  receiving  the  souls  of  pious 
Israelites,  and  irausi)oiliug  them  to  tliat  portion  of  Hades  whicli  is  reserved  for  them. 
Abi<i/i(tiu's  boxuiii,  a  figure  also  common  among  the  liabhins,  denotes  either  intimate 
communion  in  general  (John  1  ;  18),  or  more  specially  Ihe  place  of  honor  at  a  feast 
(John  13  :  ~o)  ;  this  is  naturally  assigneil  to  the  newly-arrived  stranger,  all  the  moie 
that  his  eailhly  sulferings  demand  a  rich  compeusalion.  Abraliam  presides  at  the 
feast  until  the  Messiah  comes  to  take  the  firt^t  i)lace,  and  the  feast  of  the  kuigdom 
begins  (13  :  25).  Jleyer  concludes,  from  the  fact  that  the  iuteimeutof  Lazarus  is  not 
meutioucd,  and  from  the  object  Lxvrdv,  him,  that  he  was  transported  body  and  soul 
to  Abraham's  bosom.  But  sso  eatlj'  as  in  the  Targum  of  Canticles,  we  find  tlie  dis- 
tinction between  body  and  soul  ;  "  The  lighteous  whose  souls  are  carried  by  angels 
to  paradise."  The  pronoun  avTov  thus  designates  only  his  true  velf,  the  soul.  The 
burial  of  Lazarus  is  not  mentioned,  for  it  tooli  place  without  ceremony,  or  perhaps 
not  at  all.  The  body,  claimed  by  no  one,  was  thrown  to  the  dunghill.  The  con- 
tiiust  to  the  rich  man  is  evident.  No  augels  to  transport  his  soul  ;  but  for  his  body, 
on  the  contrar\',  a  splendid  funeral  procession. 

AVhat  is  tlie  crime  in  the  life  of  this  rich  man  which  accounts  for  the  terrible 
condition  described  in  the  following  scene  ?  From  the  fact  that  it  is  not  mentioned, 
the  conclusion  has  been  diawn  that  it  must  be  simply  his  riches.  The  Tubingen 
school  snys  :  he  is  condemned  as  being  rich,  and  Lazarus  is  saved  as  being  poor. 
And  M.  Reuan  thinks  that  the  parable  should  be  entitled,  not  the  parable  of  the 
■wicked  rich  man,  but  merely  of  the  rich  man.  Here,  it  is  said,  we  meet  again  with 
the  Ebionite  heres3'  of  Luke  (De  Wette)  But  how  lias  it  escaped  observation,  that 
if  no  crime  properly  so  called  is  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  rich  man,  his  misdeed  is 
nevertheless  clearly  indicated  ;  and  it  is  no  other  than  the  very  existence  of  this  poor 
man  laid  at  his  gale  in  destitution,  without  any  it-lief  being  brought  to  his  wants. 
Such  is  the  corpus  delicti.  The  crime  of  the  life  desci  ibcd  ver.  19,  is  the  fact  referred 
to  vers.  20  and  21.  Every  social  contiast  between  the  more  and  the  less,  either  in  re- 
spect of  fortune,  or  strength,  or  acquirement,  or  even  piety,  is  permitted  and  willed 
by  God  only  with  a  view  to  its  being  neutralized  by  man's  free  agency.  This  is  a 
task  assigned  from  on  high,  the  n>caus  of  forming  those  bonds  of  love  which  are  our 
treasure  in  heaven  (12  :  33,  34).  To  neglect  this  offer  is  to  piocure  for  one's  self  an 
analogous  contrast  in  the  other  life— a  contrast  which  shall  be  capable  of  being 
sweetened  for  us  no  more  than  we  have  ourselves  sweetened  it  in  the  life  below.  It 
would  l)e  hard  to  understand  how,  if  wealth  as  such  were  the  rich  man's  sin,  the 
celestial  banquet  could  be  presided  over  by  Abraham,  the  richest  of  the  rich  in  Israel. 
As  to  Lazarus,  the  real  cause  of  the  welcome  which  he  finds  in  the  world  to  come  is 
not  his  poverty,  but  that  which  is  already  pointed  out  by  his  name  :  God  is  my 
help. 

The  scene  from  beyond  the  tomb.  vers.  2.3-81,  offers  a  contrast  exactly  corre- 
sponding to  the  terrc!«trial  iscene.  We  di  not  attempt  to  distinguish  in  the  represen- 
tation what  should  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense  and  what  strictlj'.  The  realities  of 
the  spiritual  world  can  only  be  expressed  by  figures  ;  but,  as  has  been  said,  those 
figures  are  the  figures  of  something.  The  colors  are  almost  all  borrowed  from  the 
palette  of  the  Rabbins  ;  but  the  thought  which  clothes  itself  in  those  figures  that  it 
may  become  palpable,  is,  as  we  shall  see,  the  oiigiual  and  personal  thought  of  Jesus. 


394  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Of  the  two  interviews  formiiig  this  scene,  the  first  relates  to  the  rich  man's  lot  (vers. 
2u-2Cj,  the  second  to  that  of  his  brethren  (vers.  27-31). 
f  Vers.  23-26.*  After  the  short  sleep  of  death,  what  an  awakening  !  The  idea  of 
suflfeiing  does  not  lie  in  the  words  ev  tw  tt5}7,  which  our  versions  render  b}'  :  in  hell. 
Scheol  (litib.).  Hacks  (Gr.),  iha  Infcri  or  infernal  regions  (Lat.),  simiily  denote  the 
abode  of  tlie  dead,  without  distinguishing  the  different  conditions  which  it  may  in- 
clude, in  opposition  to  the  land  of  the  living.  Paradise  (23  :  43)  as  well  as  Gehenna 
(12  :  5)  forms  part  of  it.  Hence,  also,  from  the  midst  of  his  punishment  the  rich  man 
can  behold  Abraham  and  Lazarus.  The  notion  of  pain  is  actually  found  only  in  the 
words  :  being  in  tormenis.  On  Abraham  in  the  abode  of  the  dead,  comp.  John  8  :  5G, 
where  Jesus  speaks  without  figure.  The  plural  roL<i  hoAtioi?,  substituted  for  the  sin- 
gular (ver.  22),  denotes  fulness;  ji  whole  region  is  meant  where  a  company  is  gathered 
together.  The  situation,  ver.  24  et  seq.,  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the  dialogues  of  the 
dead  found  in  the  ancients,  and  particularlj'  in  the  Rabbins,  ^covydai,  calling  in  a 
loud  voice,  corresponds  to  /laxpuOtv,  afar  off,  ver.  23.  Xothingmore  severe  for  those 
Pliarisees,  who  made  a  genealogical  tree  the  foundation  of  their  salvation,  than  tliis 
address  put  into  the  mouth  r.f  the  poor  condemned  man  :  Father  Abraham!  "  All 
the  circumcised  are  safe,"  said  the  Rabbins  ;  therefore,  was  not  circumcised  equiva- 
lent to  son  of  Abraham?  In  this  situation,  there  aiises  in  the  mind  of  the  rich  man 
a  thought  which  had  never  occurred  to  him  while  he  was  on  the  earth,  namely,  thai 
the  contrast  between  abundance  and  destitution  may  have  its  utility  for  him  who  is 
in  want.  He  expresses  his  discovery  with  a  simplicit}^  in  which  shameltssness  dis- 
putes the  palm  with  innocence.  The  gen.  vSavoZ  with  fidnTEiv  :  to  drop  xcatcr  ; 
this  expression  denotes  water  falling  drop  by  drop  from  the  finger  which  has  been 
immersed  in  it  ;  it  thus  coriesponds  to  the  woid  crumbs,  ver.  21. 

Oq.  flame,  comp.  Mark  9  :  43-18,  49.  Lustful  desires,  inflamed  and  fed  by  bound- 
less gratification,  change  into  torture  for  the  soul  as  soon  as  it  is  deprived  of  the  ex- 
ternal objects  wiiich  correspond  to  them,  and  from  the  bcdy  by  which  it  communi- 
cates with  them.  The  address  :  my  son,  in  the  mouth  of  Abiaham,  is  more  po'gnant 
still  than  that  of  Father  Abraham  in  that  of  the  rich  man.  Abraham  acknowledges 
the  realitj'  of  the  civil  state  appealed  to,  and  yet  this  man  is  and  remains  in  Gehenna  ! 
The  word  remember  is  the  central  one  of  the  parable  ;  for  it  forms  the  bond  between 
the  two  scenes,  that  of  the  earth  and  that  of  Hades.  "  Recall  the  contrast  which 
thon  didst  leave  unbroken  on  the  earth  .  .  .  and  thou  shalt  understand  that  the 
present  corresponding  contrast  cannot  be  alleviated  without  injustice.  Thou  hast  let 
the  time  pass  for  making  Lazarus  thy  friend  (16  :  8,  9)  ;  he  can  now  do  nothing  for 
thee."  In  dneXafjEi,  thou  rtceivedii,  there  is,  as  in  the  drs'xstv,  ]\Iatt.  6  :  2,  5,  16, 
tlie  notion  of  receiving  by  appropriating  greedily  for  the  purpose  of  enjoj'mcnt.  The 
selfish  appropriation  of  goods  was  not  tempered  in  him  by  the  free  munificence  of 
love.  He  thought  only  of  draining  to  the  very  bottom  the  cup  of  pleasure  which  was 
at  his  lips.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  pronoun  dod  added  to  dyaBd,  "  thy 
good  things  ;"  this  qualification  is  not  added  to  xaxd,  in  the  second  clause  ;  Abra- 
ham says  simply  :  "  evil  things."  God  trains  the  human  soul  by  joys  and  h\  sor- 
rows.    The  education  of  every  soul  demands  a  certain  sum  of  both.     This  thought 

*  Ver.  25.  7  Mjj.  30  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  (5v  after  aTtEXaBE<;.  Instead  of  o8e  (T.  K. 
with  some  Mnn.),  all  the  documents  :  tySf.  Ver.  20.  ii.  B.  L.  ItP'"''!"*,  sv  instead  of 
£Tti  before  ncx6i.  Instead  of  evrevBev  (T.  R.  with  K.  11.  some  Mnn.),  all  the  docu- 
ments. svOsy.     ii.  B.  D.  omit  oi  before  EHEibev. 


CH.vp.   xvr.  :  2'^-'3l.  395 

forms  tliL'  foundation  of  vcr.  25.  It  refers  exclusively  fo  the  pcdagogicfil  economy 
here  below  or  in  the  world  ubove.  The  words  comforted  and  tormiiitcd  aic  not  the 
equiviileuts  of  A(r»'<Z  and  damned,  absolutely  taken.  Nothing  could  be  final  anior;^ 
the  members  of  the  ancient  covenant  till  they  had  been  broujrht  into  contact  with 
Jesus  Christ.*  "  The  gospel,"  says  St.  Peter  (I  Ep.  4  :  6),  "  ■was  preached  to  them 
lliat  are  dead,  that  they  might  be  [capable  of  being]  judged."  The  knowledge  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  condition  on  which  the  pronouncing  of  the  final  sentence  on  every 
s,)ul  is  based.  The  hour  of  this  judgment  has  not  j'et  struck  for  the  rich  man.  Con- 
sequently this  verse  neitiier  teaches  salvation  bj'  poverty  nor  danmation  by  riches  ; 
cJ3f,  /irrc,  which  is  read  by  all  the  iljj  ,  is  preferable  to  ode,  he.  Here  is  opposed 
lo  :  in  hiH  lifdime. 

Ver.  20.  But  even  snppfisiiig  that  some  concession  might  be  made  in  respect  of 
justice,  there  is  another  reason  which  cuts  cfCall  hope — the  impossibility  of  the  tiling. 
The  Rabliins  represent  the  two  parts  of  Hades  as  separated  by  a  wall  ;  Jesus  here 
substitutes  a  gulf,  a  figure  which  agrees  better  "with  the  entire  description.  It  is  the 
emblem  of  Gods  iufiexible  decree.  Only  from  the  fact  that  this  gulf  cannot  be 
crossed  at  present,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  may  not  be  so  one  day  by  means  of  a 
bridge  offered  to  repentant  Jews  (comp.  Matt.  12  :  32). f  The  omission  of  oi  before 
tHEiOsv,  by  the  Alex.,  identifies  those  who  pass  with  those  who  repass. 

Vers.  27-31.1  TJte  Second  Convcrsedion. — The  rich  man  accjuiesces  so  far  as  his 
own  person  is  concerned.  But  he  intercedes  for  his  brethren  still  in  life.  And  again 
it  is  Lazarus  who  must  busy  himself  on  their  behalf  !  What  is  the  thought  contained 
in  this  conclusion?  Starting  from  the  standpoint  that  the  idea  of  the  parable  is  the 
condemnation  of  wealth,  De  Wette,  the  Tiibiugen  school,  and  Weizsiicker  himself 
find  this  last  part  entirely  out  of  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  description.  For  it  is 
their  impenitence  face  to  face  with  the  law  and  the  prophets  which  exposes  the  five 
brethren  to  dangei',  and  not  their  being  rich  men.  They  allege  therefore  that  Luke 
at  his  own  hand  has  added  this  conclusion,  with  the  view  of  transforming  a  doctrine 
which  was  originally  Ebionite  and  Judeo-Christian  into  one  anti-Judaic  or  Pauline. 
The  rich  man,  who,  in  the  original  uieauing  of  the  similitude,  simply  represented 
riches,  becomes  in  this  conclusion  the  type  of  Jewish  unbelief  in  respect  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  Weizsacker  g(jes  the  length  of  regarding  Lazarus  as  the  represent- 
ative of  the  Gentiles  despised  by  the  Jews.  This  last  idea  is  incfimpatible  with  the 
Jewish  name  Lazarus,  as  well  as  with  the  place  awarded  to  him  in  Abraham's  bosom, 
the  gathering  place  of  pious  Jews.  As  to  the  rich  man,  from  the  beginning  he  rep- 
resents not  the  rich  in  general,  but  the  rich  man  hardened  by  well-being,  tliel'haris^e, 
whose  heart,  puffed  up  with  pride,  is  closed  to  sympathy  with  the  suffering.  This 
appears  from  the  expressions  :  Failier  Abraham,  my  son,  vers.  24,  25,  wiiich  are  as  it 
were  the  motto  of  Israelitish  formalism  (Matt.  3  :  7-9  ;  John  8  :  39).  This  conclusion 
is  thus  nothing  else  than  the  practical  application  of  the  parable,  which,  instead  of 
being  presented  to  his  hearers  in  the  form  of  an  abstract  lesson,  is  given  as  the  con- 

*  This  generalization  is  based  on  an  interpretation  of  1  Pet.  4  :  0,  determined  by 
connecting  it  with  chap.  3  :  19,  20.  But  this  connection  is  not  certain,  nor  is  there 
anything  like  agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of  eitlier  text. — J.  IL 

f  Our  autiior,  in  quoting  this  ver.se  in  Uiis  connecition,  is  opposed  to  the  weightiest 
authorities.  Tlie  woids  "  in  this  world  (age)  or  the  world  to  come,"  are  curreci/y 
taken  by  De  "Wette,  Alford,  etc.,  as  equivalent  to  necer.—H.  IL 

X  Ver.  29.  8.  B.  L.  omit  avroa  after  Xsyn  or  Xeyei  de.  .-, 


'Mu  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE, 

tinuation  of  the  scene  itself.  It  is  exactly  the  same  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal 
son,  in  which  the  elder  sou  exhibits  the  Pharisees  with  llieir  murmuriugs,  and  the 
divine  answer.  Tlie  first  portrait,  vers.  19-21,  depicted  the  sin  of  the  rich  man  ;  the 
second,  vers.  22-26,  his  punishment.  In  tiiis  appendix:  Jesus  unveils  to  His  hearers 
the  cause  of  this  misery,  the  absence  of  /.lerdvoia,  repentance,  and  for  those  who 
wished  to  profit  by  the  warniug,  the  means  of  preventing  the  lot  which  threatens 
Ihem  at  the  moment  of  their  death  :  taking  to  heart  Moses  and  the  prophets  very 
differenth'  from  what  they  have  ever  done.  There  must  pass  within  them  what  took 
place  ill  the  prodigal  son,  the  figure  of  the  publicans  (15  :  17  :  lie  came  to  himself),  and 
in  the  steward,  the  tj'pe  of  the  new  believers  (10  :  3  :  Jte  said  within  himself)  :  that  act 
of  solemn  self-examination  in  which  the  heart  is  broken  at  the  thought  of  its  sins, 
and  w'hich  impresses  an  entirely  new  direction  on  the  life,  and  on  the  employment  of 
earthly  goods  in  particular.  To  reject  this  conclusion  is  therefore  to  break  the  arrow- 
point  shot  by  the  hand  of  Jesus  at  the  consciences  of  His  hearers. 

Ver.  27.  The  five  brethren  cannot  represent  the  rich  of  this  world  in  general,  and 
as  little  the  Jews  who  remained  unbelieving  in  respect  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  ate 
Jews  living  in  a  privileged,  brilliant  condition,  like  that  of  the  rich  man — the  Phari- 
sees, whom  this  man  represented  ;  this  relation  is  the  idea  expressed  b}'  the  image  of 
the  kinship  which  connects  them.  Some  have  imagined  that  those  five  biethren  are 
the  five  sons  of  the  high  priest  Annas.  Would  Jesus  iiave  condescended  to  such  per- 
sonalities ?  The  forms  of  address  :  father,  ver.  2'!,fat]ier  Abraham,  ver.  30,  continue 
to  define  the  meaning  of  this  principal  personage  very  clearly.  Jicx  ucxprvpedOai, 
ver.  28,  does  not  signify  only  :  to  declare,  but  to  testify  in  such  a  way  that  the  truth 
pierces  through  the  wrappings  of  a  hardened  conscience  (dia).  In  putting  this  re- 
quest into  the  rich  man's  mouth,  Jesus  undoubtedy  alludes  to  that  thirst  for  miracles, 
for  extraordinary  and  palpable  manifestations,  which  He  never  failed  to  meet  among 
His  adversaries,  and  which  lie  refused  to  satisfy.  Such  demands  charge  with  in- 
suflicieucy  the  means  of  repentance  which  God  had  all  along  placed  in  Isiael.  Some 
commentators,  unable  to  allow  any  good  feeling  in  one  damned,  have  attributed  this 
prayer  of  the  rich  man  to  a  selfish  aim.  According  to  them,  he  dreaded  the  time 
when  his  own  sufferings  would  be  aggravated  by  seeing  those  of  his  brethren.  But 
would  not  even  this  fear  still  suppose  in  him  a  remnant  of  love  ?  And  why  represent 
him  as  destitute  of  all  human  feeling?  He  is  not  yet,  we  have  seen,  damned  in  the 
absolute  .sense  of  the  word.  If  we  must  seek  a  selfish  alloy  in  this  prayer,  it  can  only 
be  the  desire  to  excuse  himself,  by  giving  it  to  be  understood,  that  if  he  had  been 
sufliciently  warned  he  would  not  liave  been  where  he  is. 

Abraham  teaches  all  his  sons  by  his  reply,  ver.  29, with  what  earnestness  the}''  should 
henceforth  listen  to  the  reading  of  that  law  and  those  prophets,  the  latter  of  Avhich 
they  had,  up  till  now,  heard  or  even  studied  in  vain  (John  5  :  38,  39).  The  subject 
has  nothing  to  do  with  unbelief  regarding  Jesus  ;  the  situation  of  this  sajing  is  purely 
Jewish.  The  rich  man  insists  His  answer,  JS^ny,  father  Abraham,  ver.  30,  depicts 
the  Rabbinical  spirit  of  disputation  and  pharisaic  effrontery.  Repentance  would  pro- 
duce, he  fully  acknowledges,  a  life  wholly  different  from  his  own  (such  as  it  has  been 
described,  ver.  19)  ;  but  the  law  without  miracles  would  not  sutfice  to  produce  this 
state  of  mind.  Jesus  unveils,  ver.  31,  the  complete  illusion  belonging  to  this  idea  of 
rcnversion  by  means  of  great  miraculous  interpositions.  He  whom  the  law  and  the 
prophets  bring  not  to  the  conviction  of  his  sins,  will  be  as  little  led  to  it  by  the  sight 
even  uf  one  raised  from  the  dead.    After  the  first  emotion  of  astonishment  and  ter- 


CH.VJ'.    .\\  I.  :  '^7  ;  xvii.  :  1-10.  397 

ror,  criticism  will  awake  saj'ins,  Hallucination  !  and  carnal  security,  shaken  for  a 
mumenl,  will  ruassurt  itself.  Jesus  not  liaviug  showed  Himself,  and  not  having 
pieachud  to  the  Jews  after  His  resurrection,  this  saying  cannot  be  an  invention  of 
Luke  borrowed  from  that  event. 

Such  is  the  terrible  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  derision  of  His  adversaries,  the  proud 
anil  covetous  Pharisees,  ver.  14.  He  shows  them  their  poitrait,  the  likeness  of  Iheir 
present  life,  and  their  lot  after  death.  Now  they  know  what  they  are  in  the  eyes  of 
God  (19-21),  and  what  awaits  them  (33-35)  ;  they  know  also  the  real  cau.se  of  their 
near  perdition,  and  the  only  means  which  can  yet  avert  it  (37-31). 

From  this  study  it  follows  :  1.  That  all  ihe  indications  of  the  preface  (vers.  14-18) 
are  entirely  jiislitied  ;  in  particular,  that  the  ^apidaloi  {(he  Phuriatcs),  ver.  14,  is  the 
real  key  of  liie  parable.  3.  That  there  reigus  Ihrdughout  this  description  a  perfect 
unity  of  idia,  and  liiat  the  context  furnishes  no  well-founded  reason  for  distinguishing 
between  an  original  parable  anil  a  later  rehandling.  3.  That  the  piece  as  a  whole, 
in  all  its  details,  are  in  direct  correspondence  with  the  historical  situation  in  which 
Jesus  was  teaching,  aud  lind  their  natural  explanation  without  any  need  of  having  re- 
course to  the  later  circumstances  of  apostolic  limes.  4.  That  this  passage  furnishes 
110  proof  of  an  Ebioulte  document  anterior  to  our  Gospel,  and  forming  one  of  the 
essential  materials  em()K)yed  by  the  author.  Hilgenfeld  sajs  ("  Die  Evangel."  p.  103)  : 
"  Aoichcre  does  our  Gospel  allow  us  to  distinguish  so  cleaily  the  original  writing  of 
which  it  is  the  auti-.Jewish  and  Pauline  handling."  Nowiiere  so  cleaili"^  I  This  pas- 
sage proving  nothing,  it  follows  that  the  others  prove  less  than  nothing. 

This  character,  m)t  ami- Jewish,  but  ceitainly  anli-pharisaic,  belongs  equally  to  the 
whole  seiiesof  pieces  which  we  have  ju»t  surveyed  (cnmp.  11  :  37-13  :  13)  ;  then  (after 
an  interruption).  13  :  lU-31,  14  : 1,  5  ;  2,  IG  :  14.  The  parable  of  the  unfaithful  steward 
is  als.j  connected  with  this  series  by  the  law  of  contrast.  Here  then,  is  the  lime  of 
the  most  intense  struggle  between  Jesus  and  pharisaism,  in  Galilee,  like  the  contem- 
poraneous period.  John  7-10,  in  Judea. 

7.  Various  Sai/ings :  17  :1-10. — This  piece  contains  four  Drief  lessons,  placed  here 
without  introduction,  and  between  which  it  is  impossible  to  establish  a  connection. 
Olshauseu  and  Mcj'er  have  attempted  to  connect  them  with  one  another  and  with 
what  precedes.  The  offence,  vers.  1  and  2,  according  to  them,  is  either  that  which  the 
rich  man  gave  to  his  brethren,  or  that  which  the  Pharisees  gave  to  weak  behevers,  by 
preventing  them  from  declaring  themselves  for  Christ.  But  how  is  the  expression, 
one  of  these  little  ones  (ver.  2),  applicable  to  the  rich  man's  brethren  ?  And  in  the  sec- 
ond sense,  should  not  the  warning  be  addressed  to  the  adversaries  rather  than  unto  the 
disciples  (ver.  1)  ?  The  teaching  regarding  pardon  (vers.  3,  4)  is  taken  to  refer  to  the 
arrogant  harshness  of  the  Pharisees,  who  did  not  allow  the  publicans  to  appropriate 
the  pardon  of  sins  (the  offence,  vers.  1,  2)  ;  or  rancor  is  regarded  as  one  of  those 
offences  of  which  we  must  beware  ;  or,  finall3%  a  climax  is  supposed  :  it  is  nut  enough 
not  to  do  evil  to  others  (vers.  1,  2) ;  we  should  also  pardon  the  evil  which  they  do  to 
us  (vers.  3  and  4).  These  connections,  more  or  less  ingenious,  are  artificial  ;  they  are 
like  those  by  which  one  succeeds  in  tagging  together  given  rhymes.  The  petition  of 
the  apostles  (vers.  5  and  6)  is  held  to  find  its  occasion  in  the  feeling  of  their  power- 
lessness  to  pardon.  But  in  this  sense,  Jesus  should  have  spoken  in  His  reply,  not  of 
the  faith  which  works  external  miracles,  but  of  that  which  works  by  love.  Lastly, 
the  doctrine  taught  of  the  non-meritoriousucss  of  works  (vers.  7-10)  is  alleged  to  be 
introduced  by  this  idea,  that  the  greatest  miracles  w^rought  by  faith  confer  no  merit 
on  man.  But  how  could  miracles  of  faith  be  described  as  Szcrra^OfVrtr,  things  com- 
manded ?  De  Wette  is  therefore  right  in  declining  to  find  a  connection  between  those 
different  sayings.     Let  us  add  that  seveial  of  them  are  placed  by  Matthew  and  Mark 


398  COMMEXTAllY   0:S"    ST.   LUKE. 

in  historical  circumstances,  where  they  have  their  entire  appropriateness.     TTe  shall 
bo  able  to  state  the  critical  result  when  we  come  to  sum  up. 

Vers.  1  and  2.*  Offences. — "  Then  said  He  unto  the  disciples,  It  is  impossible  but 
that  offences  (scandals)  will  come  :  but  woe  unto  him  through  whom  they  come  !  2. 
It  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  cast  into 
the  sea,  than  that  he  shuuld  offend  one  of  these  little  ones.  Take  heed  to  j'our- 
selves."  The  formula  £i7te  Se,  then  said  He  (aor.),  has  not  the  same  weight  as  the 
aXEys  5s,  Me  teas  saying  to  t/icm,  the  significance  of  which  in  Luke  we  have  often 
remarked.  It  is  the  simple  historical  fact.  "" Ay EHSEKtov,  inadmissible.  The  absence 
of  offences  is  a  supposition  which  cannot  be  admitted  in  the  siuful  state  in  which  the 
world  is  plunged.  The  determining  particle  rov  is  authentic.  The  form,  {the) 
offences  {roc),  denotes  the  entire  category  of  facts  of  this  kind.  The  reading  uvXod 
oviHoi,  a  millstone  moved  by  an  ass,  is  undoubtedly  borrowed  from  Matthew  ;  we 
must  adopt,  with  the  Alex.,  X/Qoi  (.ivXinoi,  a  millstone  of  smaller  dimensions,  moved 
by  the  hand  (ver.  35).  The  punishment  to  which  ver.  2  alludes  was  usual  among 
many  ancient  peoples,  and  is  so  still  in  the  East.  The  reading  of  several  copies  of 
the  Itala,  which  is  also  found  in  Marcion,  "It  were  better  for  him  that  he  had 
never  been  born,  or  that  a  stone  .  .  ."  arises,  no  doubt,  from  an  ancient  gloss 
taken  from  Matt.  20  :  24.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Clemens  Komanus 
combines  in  his  1  Cor.  4G  the  two  passages.  Matt.  18  :  6,  7  (parallel  to  ours)  and  Matt. 
23  :  24.     The  little  ones  are  beginners  in  the  faith.     The  final  warning,  Take  heed 

.  .  is  occasioned,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  extreme  facility  of  causing  offence 
fver.  1) ;  on  the  other,  by  the  terrible  danger  to  which  it  exposes  him  v/ho  causes  it 
(ver.  2).  The  lost  soul,  like  an  eternal  burden,  is  bound  to  him  who  has  dragged  it 
into  evil,  and  in  turn  drags  him  into  the  abyss. 

The  same  warning  is  found  ]\Iatt.  18  :  G  and  Mark  9  :  42.  The  (jffence  which  gave 
rise  to  it  may  he  in  this  context,  either  that  which  tlu;  disciples  had  given  one  another 
in  the  strife  which  had  taken  place  between  them,  or  thai  which  they  had  caused  to 
the  man  in  whom  faith  had  just  dawned  (one  of  these  little  ones),  and  who  was  mani- 
festing it  by  curing  the  jjossessed.  Luke  evidently  did  not  know  this  connection  ; 
for  he  would  not  have  failed  to  indicate  it— he  who  seeks  out  histoiical  situations 
with  so  much  care.  Had  he  not,  besides,  himself  mentioned  those  two  facts 
(9  :  46-50),  and  might  he  not  have  connected  this  admonition  with  them  as  IMark 
does?  Luke,  therefore,  did  not  possess  this  original  Mark,  which  Holtzmann  regards 
as  one  of  his  principal  sources  ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  detached  this  saying 
from  the  fact  which  gave  rise  to  it.  But  the  ai;count  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark 
proves  the  truth  of  Luke's  introduction,  "  He  said  unto  the  disciples,"  and  the  accu- 
racy of  the  document  from  which  he  derived  this  precept. 

Vers.  3  and  4.f  The  Pardon  of  2'respasses. — "  If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee, 
rebuke  him  ;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him.     4.  And  if  he  trespass  against  thee  seven 

*  Ver.  1.  9  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  avrov  after  /laOrjra?.  T.  R.,  with  some 
Mnn.,  only  omits  rov  before  dxavdaXa.  ^.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  lt*''i.,  nXr^v  ovai 
instead  of  ovai  8s.  Ver.  2.  ltpi^"''"i"%  si  ovk  sysvvrfiy]  ?;  AzOoS  .  .  .  Marcion 
appears  to  have  read  thus  ;  Clem.  Rom.  perhaps.  2*.  B.  D.  L.  20  Mnn.  It  Vg.,  Az6o? 
^ivXiHoi  instead  of  /xvXoi  oviuoi. 

t  Ver.  3.  5  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  6e  after  eav.  ».  A.  B.  L.  Itpi"W<>^  omit  eii 
ce  after  a/inpri}  (words  taken,  perhaps,  from  ver.  4  or  from  Matt.  18  :  15).  Ver.  4.  i^. 
B.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  Itpi«"q"%  omit  rrji  vi^epnc.  Instead  of  em  ae.  which  T.  R., 
with  some  Mnn.,  reads,  7  Mjj.  read  npos  ae.  12  Mjj.  125  Mnn.  It»"i.  omit  all  gov- 
ernment. 


CUAP.  XVII.  :  1-G.  399 

% 

times  in  a  day,  and  seven  times  in  a  day  turn  again  to  lliee,  saying,  I  repent,  Ihou 
kIuiU  forgive  him."  Holiness  and  love  meet  together  in  this  precept :  holiness  begins 
with  rebuking  ;  then,  when  the  rebuke  has  once  been  taken,  love  pardons.  Tlic 
pardon  to  be  granteil  to  our  brethren  has  no  other  limit  than  their  repenting,  and  the 
confession  by  which  it  is  expressed. 

^latlhew  (18  :  15-20)  places  this  precept  in  the  same  discourse  as  the  preceding  ; 
it  piobabiy  reteirtd  also  to  the  alteicaliou  which  had  taken  place  belween  llie  dis- 
ciples on  tiiat  occasion.  But  there  what  gives  rise  to  it  is  a  chaiacterislic  question  of 
Peter,  which  Luke  did  not  know  ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  omitted  it  ;  comp. 
12:41.  where  he  carefully  mentions  a  similar  ([uestion  put  by  the  same  aposiie. 
.Mark  omits  this  precept  about  pardon  ;  but  at  the  end  of  ihe  same  discourse  we  find 
this  remarkable  exhoMaliou  (!J  :  50)  :  "  Have  salt  in  yourselves  (use  severity  toward 
yourselves  ;  comp.  5  :  4o-48),  and  have  peace  with  one  another" — a  saying  which  has 
sulistiinliall}-  the  same  mi'iuiing  as  our  precept  on  the  subject  of  pardon.  What  a 
proof  bolii  of  the  radical  autbenticity  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and  of  the  fragmentary 
mnuner  in  wluch  tradition  had  preserved  them,  as  well  as  of  the  diversity  of  the 
sources  from  which  our  evangelists  derived  them  ! 

Vers.  5  and  6.*  Fai/h. — "  And  the  apostles  said  unto  the  Lord,  Increase  our  faith. 
6.  And  the  Lord  said,  If  ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  je  might  sa}'  unto 
this  sycamine  tree.  Be  thou  plucked  up  by  the  root,  and  be  thou  planted  in  Ihe  sea  ; 
and  it  should  obe}''  you."  This  request  of  the  disciples  must  have  been  called  forth 
b}'  some  manifestation  of  the  extraordinar\'  power  of  Je.sus,  with  which  Luke  was 
unacquainted.  The  literal  force  of  the  word  which  the  disciples  use,  "Add  to  our 
faith,"  a:<sumes  that  they  think  they  have  some.  .Jesus  does  not  deny  it;  but  lie 
reduces  this  having  to  the  feeblest  imaginable  quantity,  since  the  smallest  organic 
body  is  loo  large  as  an  emblem  of  it.  The  only  real  power  in  the  universe  is  the 
divine  will.  The  human  will,  which  has  discovered  the  secret  of  blending  with  this 
force  of  forces,  is  raised,  in  virtue  of  this  union,  to  omnipotence  ;  and  from  the  lime 
it  becomes  conscious  of  this  privilege,  it  acts  without  obstiuction,  even  in  the 
domain  of  nature,  if  the  kingdom  of  God  so  requires.  Perhaps  the  sycamine  to 
which  Jesus  points  is,  in  His  view,  the  emblem  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  sea 
(here  the  shore,  the  pure  sand)  that  of  the  heathen  world,  that,  till  now,  barren  soil 
in  which,  by  the  faith  and  the  prayers  of  the  disciples,  the  divine  work  is  henceforth 
to  be  planted  and  to  prosper. 

Matthew  twice  presents  a  saying  similar  to  that  of  ver.  6,  and  both  times  in  a 
definite  situation  ;  first,  afler  the  healing  of  the  lunatic  son,  and  in  contrast  to  Ihe 
ajxistles'  lack  of  faith  (17  :  20.  21).  Only  in  the  two  cases  it  is  a  utountaiii  which  is 
to  be  cast  into  the  sea.  Mark,  who  in  narrating  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree  shows 
himself  the  most  accurate!)'  informed,  there  reproduces  this  parable  almost  in  Ihe 
same  way  as  ^^latlhew  ;  only  he  prefaces  it  with  the  words,  "  Have  faith  in  God," 
and  connects  with  it  an  exhortation  to  pardon  as  the  condition  of  prayer  being  heard. 
No  doubt,  owing  to  the  proverl)ial  character  of  this  saying,  it  may  have  been  fre- 
(luently  repeated.  But  there  is  a  very  remarkable  dovetailing  between  Luke  and  the 
two  others,  Mark  especially.  Do  not  the  words  of  Jesus  in  Mark,  Hare  f(tHh  in  God 
and  .  .  .  peifectly  explain  the  prayer  of  the  apostles  in  Luke,  i/jc?'e«.*te  o?<r/«(7// .? 
Here,  as  at  12  :  41  (comp.  with  Mark  13  :  37),  Ihe  one  evangelist  has  j>reserved  one 
part  of  the  conversation,  Ihe  other  another.  With  a  common  written  source,  is  I  hat 
intelligible?  As  to  the  admonition  regarding  pardon,  which  in  M:irk  follows  this 
exhortation  to  faith  (11  :  24,  25),  it  sustains  to  the  question  of  Peter  (Matt.  18  :  21), 
and  the  exhortation  in  Luke  (vers.  3,  4),  a  relation  similar  to  that  which  we  have  just 

*  Ver.  6.  ».  D.  L.  X.  omit  tuv-t]. 


400  C0M.MEXTA11Y    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

observed  between  Luke  la  :  41  and  Mark  13  :  37.     They  are  fragments  of  one  whole, 
the  grouping  of  whicii  it  is  not  difficult  to  restore. 

Vers.  7-10.*  The  Non-meritoriousness  of  Works. — "But  which  of  you,  hiiving  a 
servant  plowing  or  feeding  cattle,  will  say  unto  him  by  and  by,  when  he  is  come 
from  the  field,  Go  and  sit  down  to  meat  ?  8.  And  will  not  rather  say  unto  him,  Make 
ready  wherewith  I  may  sup,  and  gird  thyself,  and  serve  me,  till  I  have  eaten  and 
drunken  ;  and  afterward  thou  shalt  eat  and  drink?  9.  Doth  he  thank  that  servant 
because  he  did  the  thiags  that  were  commanded  him  ?  I  trow  not.  10.  So  likewise 
ye,  when  ye  shall  have  done  all  those  things  which  are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are 
unprofitable  servauts  :  we  have  dune  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do."  This  saying, 
which  has  no  connection  with  what  immediately  precedes,  does  not  the  less  admirably 
close  this  series  of  exhortations  given  by  Jesus,  which  almost  all  relate  to  phaiisiusni ; 
it  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  A  slave  returns  m  the  evening,  after  having  labored  all  day 
in  the  fields.  Does  the  master  give  himself  up  to  extraordinary  demonstrations  uf 
pleasure  ?  No  ;  everything  goes  on  in  the  house  according  to  the  established  order. 
From  the  work  of  the  day,  the  servant  simply  passes  to  that  cf  the  evening  ;  he 
dresses  the  viands,  and  serves  at  table  as  long  (euS,  or  better  still,  ewS  av)  as  his  master 
pleases  to  eat  and  drink.  And  only  then  may  he  himself  take  his  meal.  So  the  most 
irreproachable  of  men  umst  say  to  himself  that  he  has  done  nothing  but  pay  his  debt 
to  God  ;  does  not  God  on  His  side  provide  for  all  his  wants  ?  From  the  standpoint 
of  right,  they  are  quits  on  both  sides.  The  word  axiieloi,  unprofitable,  here  signifies  : 
one  loho  has  rendered  no  service  {hti-yonA.  what  was  due).  This  estimation  of  human 
work  is  true  in  the  sphere  of  right  where  pharisaism  plants  itself,  and  it  crushes  this 
system  in  the  dust  by  denying,  along  with  all  human  merit,  all  obligation  on  God's 
part  to  recompense  man  ;  and  this  estimate  should  remain  that  of  every  man  when  he 
values  his  work  in  the  presence  of  God.  But  there  is  a  sphere  higher  than  that  of  right, 
that  of  love  ;  and  in  this  latter  another  labor  on  man's  part,  that  of  joyful  devo- 
tion, and  another  estimate  on  God's  part,  that  of  the  love  which  is  rejoiced  by  love. 
Jesus  has  described  this  other  point  of  view,  12  :  36,  37.  Holtzmann  thmks  it  impos- 
sible that  (his  exhortation  should  have  been  addressed  to  the  disciples  (ver.  1).  But 
is  not  the  pharisaic  tendency  ever  ready  to  spring  up  again  in  the  hearts  of  believers? 
and  does  it  not  cling  like  a  gnawing  worm  to  fidelity  itself?  The  words  :  1  trow  not, 
are  mistakenly  rejected  by  the  Alex.  Perhaps  the  oh  6oku  has  been  confounded  witli 
the  ovTu  which  follows. 

How  are  we  to  explain  the  position  of  those  four  exhortations  in  our  Gospel,  and 
their  juxtaposition,  without  any  logical  bond  ?  According  to  Holtzmann, f  Luke  is 
about  to  return  to  his  great  historical  source,  the  proto-Mark,  which  he  had  left  since 
9  :  51,  to  work  the  collection  of  discourses,  the  Login,  (comp.  18  :  15,  where  the  narra- 
tive of  Luke  begins  again  to  move  parallel  to  that  of  the  two  others)  ;  and  hence  he 
inserts  here  by  anticipatiim  the  two  exhortations,  vers.  1-4,  which  he  borrows  from 
this  document  (A)  ;  then  he  relates  further  (vers.  5-10)  two  sayings  which  he  had  for- 
gotten, and  whicli  he  takes  from  the  Login  (A),  whicii  lie  is  about  to  quit.  But,  1. 
Wiiy  in  this  case  sh'>uld  he  not  have  put  these  last  m  ^Ae /?r.s<  ;;tee  (which  was  the 
natural  order,  since  all  the  preceding  was  taken  from  A),  and  the  two  first  afterward 

*  Ver.  7.  !*.  B.  D.  L.  X.  15  Mnn.  Vss.  add  avru  after  enn.  Ver  9.  6  Mjj.  It"'"!. 
omit  Eizeivu  after  rfouAw.  17  Mjj.  130  Mrm.  omit  avru.  ^  B.  L.  X.  6  Mnn.  It»''"i. 
omit  ov  (hKu.     Ver.  10.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ucpeuofiEv  and  o(pFi?iOfiev. 

f  "  Already,  17  :  1-4,  Luke  attempts  to  return  to  A.  ;  then  to  finish,  he  gives,  be- 
sides, several  passages  taken  from  A."  (p.  156). 


CHAI'.     XVI 1.    .   lO-li).  -iOl 

(which  was  not  less  natuml,  since  Luke  is  about  to  return  to  A)  ?  Besides,  2.  Has 
not  tlie  exegesis  convinced  us  at  every  word  tiiat  Ijui<e  certainly  did  not  take  all  those 
sayings  from  the  same  written  source  as  Mark  and  iMatthew  ':  The  only  explanation 
which  can  be  given  of  the  fragmentary  character  of  this  piece  appears  to  us  to  be  the 
following  :  Luke  had  ui>  to  this  jioiut  related  a  series  of  exhortations  given  by  .lesus, 
the  occasion  of  which  he  was  able  to  a  certain  extent  to  indicate  ;  but  he  found  some 
in  his  sources  which  were  mentioned  without  any  historical  iniiication.  It  is  this 
remuaul  scrap  al  the  bottom  of  the  portfolio,  if  I  may  so  speak,  which  he  delivers  to 
us  as  it  was,  and  without  any  introduction.  Hence  follow  two  consequences  :  1. 
Luke's  introductions  in  this  part  are  not  of  his  inventing.  For  why  could  not  his 
ingenious  mind  have  provided  for  these  last  exhortations  as  well  as  for  ail  the  pre- 
ceding? A  historical  case  like  those  of  11  :  1,  45,  12  :  13,  41,  etc.,  was  not  diflicult 
t )  imagine.  2.  There  is  no  l)etter  proof  of  the  historical  reality  of  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  quoted  in  our  Syn.,  than  this  fragmentary  character  which  surprises  us.  Dis- 
courses which  the  discijiles  had  put  into  the  mouth  of  their  Master  would  not  haVB 
presented  this  broken  appearance. 

THIRD  CYCLE. — CHAP.   17:11-19:27. 
The  last  Scenes  of  the  Journey. 

This  third  section  brings  us  to  Bethany,  to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  the 
morning  of  Palm  Day.  It  s/ems  to  mc  evident  that  Luke,  in  ver.  11,  intends  simply 
to  indicate  the  continuation  of  the  journey  begun  9  :  51,  and  not,  as  Wiessler  will  have 
it,  the  beginning  of  a  different  journey.  In  consequence  of  the  multiplicity  of  events 
related,  Luke  reminds  us  from  time  to  time  of  the  general  situation.  It  is  in  tin; 
course  of  this  third  section  that  his  narrative  rejoins  that  of  the  two  other  Syn.  (18  ••  15 
e(  seq.),  at  the  time  when  children  are  brouglit  to  Jesus  that  He  may  bless  them. 
This  event  being  expressly  placed  in  Perea  by  ]Malthew  and  Mark,  it  is  clear  that  the 
following  events  must  have  taken  place  at;  the  time  when  Jesus  was  about  to  cross 
the  Jordan,  or  had  just  passed  it. 

1.  The  Ten  Lepers  :  17  :  11-19.— Vers.  11-19.*  Ver.  11,  even  in  its  construction, 
reminds  us  of  9  :  51.  The  xn^  oitoS  has  here,  as  well  as  there,  peculiar  force.  The 
caravans  of  Galilee  took  either  the  Samaritan  route  or  the  Perean.  Jesus  follows 
neither  ;  He  makes  one  for  Himself,  the  result  of  His  deliberate  wish,  which  is  inter- 
mediate between  the  two — !i  fact  which  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the  so  marked  re- 
suming of  the  subject  (k«?  avrdi).  The  phrase  6i(i  /xeaov  may  signify  in  Greek  :  Avhile 
travelling  through  bpth  of  those  provinces,  or  while  passing  between  them.  Olshau- 
sen  takes  the  tirst  sense  :  he  alleges  that  from  E[)hraim,  whither  Jesus  retired  after 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  (Jnhn  11  :  54),  He  visited  Galilee  once  more,  thus  travers- 
ing from  south  to  north,  first  Samaria,  and  then  Galilee.  Gess  (p.  74)  also  regards 
this  return  from  Ephraim  to  Capernaum  as  probable. f  But  the  governed  clause  to 
Jerusalem  would  in  this  sense  be  real  irony.     The  second  sense  is  therefore  the  only 

*  Ver.  11.  J*.  B.  L.  omit  nvrov  after  TzopevenOai.  ^.  B.  L.,  (ha  fuaov  instead  of  iha 
fiCTov.  Ver.  12.  !!i.  L.  some  Mnn.,  virrivTrjaav  in.stead  of  aTTrji'Trjaai^.  The  same  Mjj. 
omit  avTu. 

t  Gess's  reason  is  the  scene  of  the  didrachma.  Matt.  17  :  24-27  ;  for  the  collection 
for  the  temple  was  m;i(le  in  March.  But  in  the  year  which  preceded  His  death, 
Jesus  may  p:issii)ly  not  have  paid  till  summer  the  tribute  which  was  properly  due  in 
spring.  Tlie  form  of  the  collector's  question.  Matt.,  ver.  24,  sicms  to  suppose  a  pay- 
ment which  was  at  once  voluntary  and  in  arrears.  It  is  not  therct'ore  necessary,  on 
this  ground,  to  hold  a  return  from  Capernaum  to  Galilee  immediately  before  the  last 
Passover. 


402  COMMENTAEY   OlSf   ST.  LUKE. 

possible  one  :  Jesus  was  passing  along  the  confines  of  the  two  provinces.  Tliis  mean- 
ing is  coulirmed  by  the  absence  of  the  article  before  the  two  proper  names  :  iSaiiu.ria 
and  Galike.  He  directed  his  steps  from  west  to  east,  toward  the  Jordan,  which  He 
must  cross  to  enter  Perea — a  fact  which  harmonizes,  us  we  have  seen,  with  Matt. 
19  :  1,  Mark  10  : 1,  and  even  John  10  :  40-42.  Luke  probably  recalls  here  this  general 
situation  in  view  of  the  following  narrative,  in  which  we  find  a  Samaritan  leper  miu- 
giing  with  Jewish  lepers.  Community  of  suffering  had,  in  their  case,  broken  down 
the  national  barrier.  Less  bold  than  the  leper  of  chap.  6,  those  unhappy  men  kept  at 
a  distance,  according  to  the  law,  Lev.  13  :  40.  The  space  which  a  leper  was  bound 
to  keep  between  him  and  every  other  person  is  estimated  by  some  at  4,  by  others  at 
100  cubits.  Tlie  cry  whicii  they  uttered  with  one  voice  on  perceiving  Jesus,  draws 
His  attention  to  the  pitiable  sight.  Without  even  telling  them  of  their  cure.  He  bids 
them  go  and  give  thanks  for  it.  There  is  a  dash,  as  it  were,  of  triumphant  joy  in 
this  unexpected  order.  As  they  go  {h  rCi  virdysiv),  they  observe  the  first  symptoms  of 
the  cure  which  has  been  wrought.  Immediately  one  of  them,  seized  with  an  irresist- 
ible emotion  of  gratitude,  turns  back,  uttering  loud  cries  of  joy  and  adoration  ;  and 
arrived  in  the  presence  of  Jesus,  he  prostrates  himself  at  His  feet  in  thanksgiving. 
The  difference  is  to  be  observed  between  du^d^eiv,  glorifying,  applied  to  God,  and 
EvxaiuoTslv,  giving  tliunks,  applied  to  Jesus.  As  He  recognizes  him  to  be  a  Samari- 
tan, Jesus  feels  to  the  quick  the  difference  between  those  simple  hearts,  within  wliich 
there  yet  vibrates  the  natural  feeling  of  gratitude,  and  Jewish  liearts,  iucrusled  all 
over  with  pharisaic  pride  and  ingratitude  ;  and  immediately,  no  doubt,  the  lot  of  His 
gospel  in  the  world  is  presented  to  His  mind.  But  He  contents  Himself  with  biing- 
ing  into  view  the  present  contrast.  EvpibTjaav  has  not  for  its  subject  the  participle 
vKoaTj)i\pavTEq,  taken  substantively,  but  u7J.ol  undeistood.  Bleek  refers  the  last 
words  :  thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,  to  the  physical  cure  which  Jesus  would  confirm  to 
the  sufferer  by  leading  him  to  develop  that  disposition  of  faith  which  has  procured 
it  for  him.  But  have  we  not  here  rather  a  new  blessing,  of  which  Jesus  gives  special 
assurance  to  this  leper  ?  The  faith  of  which  Jesus  speaks  is  not  merely  tliat  which 
brought  him  at  the  first,  l)ut  more  still  that  which  has  brought  him  back.  By  this 
return  he  has  sealed  forev'er  the  previous  transitory  connection  which  his  cure  had 
formed  between  Jesus  and  him  ;  he  recognizes  His  word  as  the  instrument  of  the 
miracle  ;  he  unites  himself  closely  to  the  entire  person  of  Him  whose  power  only  he 
had  sought  at  the  first.  And  thereby  his  physical  cure  is  transformed  into  a  moral 
cure,  into  salvation. 

Criticism  suspects  this  narrative  on  account  of  its  universalistic  tendency.  But 
if  it  had  been  invented  with  a  didactic  aim,  would  the  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  it 
have  been  so  completely  passed  over  in  silence  ?  We  must  in  this  case  also  suspect 
the  healmgof  the  Gentile  centurion's  servant  in  Matthew  ;  and  that  v.'ith  more  reason 
still,  because  Jesus  insists  on  the  general  lesson  to  be  derived  from  the  event. 

2.  The  Messiah's  Coming  :  17  :  20-18  : 8. — This  piece  embraces  :  \st.  A  question 
put  by  the  Pharisees  respecting  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  the  answer  of  .Jesus  (vers.  20,  21)  ;  2d.  A  discourse  addressed  by  Jesus  to  His 
disciples  on  the  same  subject  (vers.  22-37)  ;  'dd.  The  parable  of  the  unjust  judge, 
which  applies  the  subject  treated  practically  to  believers  (18  : 1-8). 

\st.  Vers.  20  and  31.*  The  Spirituality  of  the  Kingdom. — "  And  when  He  was  de- 

*  Ver.  21.  !!i.  B.  L.  omit  l6ov  before  skel. 


CHAP.    XVII.  :  20-27.  403 

mnnded  of  llic  Pliurisecs  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come,  lie  answered  them, 
and  said,  Tlx*  kingdom  of  God  conielh  not  willi  observation,  '.il.  Neither  shall  Ihey 
say,  Lo  here  !  or,  Lo  there  !  for,  behold,  llie  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  ll  is 
known  with  what  impatience  the  Pharisees  waited  for  the  manifestations  of  the  ]\Ies- 
siauic  kingdom,  ll  is  natural  that  they  should  desire  to  know  the  opuuon  of  Jesus 
on  the  subject.  Besides,  they  would  liave  been  glad  to  embarrass  Hun  in  the  matter, 
or  lo  drag  from  Him  some  heiesy.  Their  question  rested  on  a  purely  external  vie'.v 
of  this  divine  kingdom  ;  His  advent  appeared  to  their  mind  as  u  g/eat  and  sudden 
dramatic  act.  In  the  gospel  point  of  view,  this  expectation  is  certainly  not  altogether 
falt;e  ;  but  humanity  must  be  prepared  for  ihe  new  external  and  divine  state  of  tilings 
by  a  spiritual  vvoik  wrought  in  the  depths  of  llie  heart  ;  and  it  is  this  internal  adsent 
which  Jesus  thinks  good  to  put  first  in  relief  before  such  interlocutors.  The  side  of 
the  truth  whieli  He  thinks  proper  to  set  forth  is,  as  iisual,  that  which  is  mistaken  by 
the  parties  addressing  Him.  To  the  Pharisee  Nicodemus,  who  came  to  Him  with  a 
<luestioa  analogous  to  that  whicli  His  confreres  are  now  putting,  Jesus  replies  exactly 
in  the  same  way.  The  expression  :  //eru  napaTTjpi/aeuS,  in  such  a  icayasto  be  observed, 
relates  to  the  observation  of  objects  falling  under  the  senses.  The  present  tpxerui, 
coDutfi,  is  that  of  the  idea.  Now,  since  the  kingdom  is  not  established  in  a  visible 
manner,  it  might  happen  tiiat  it  should  be  present  without  men  suspecting  it  (11  :  20). 
And  this  is  exactly  the  case  (11  :  20  :  7ias  surprised  you). 

Lo  here,  lo  there — these  words  express  the  impression  of  those  who  think  they  see 
it  coming  ;  Jesus  puts  in  opposition  to  them  His  own  behold.  This  last  relates  to 
the  surprise  which  should  be  felt  by  His  hearers  on  learning  that  the  kingdom  is 
already  present.  The  words  IjtoS  vfti^y  are  explained  by  almost  all  modern  inter- 
preters in  the  sense  of,  in  ihe  midt-t  of  you.  Philologically  this  meaning  is  possible  ; 
it  may  be  harmonized  with  the  yap.  But  the  verb  idriv  would  in  this  case  necessa- 
rily require  to  be  put  beftire  the  regimen  ;  for  this  veib  is  would  have  the  emphasis, 
"  it  is  really  present."  The  idea,  ainoiiff  you  wouU  be  secondary.  If  the  regimen 
iyroi  u/<ojr  has  Ihe  emphasis  (and  its  place  proves  that  it  has),  it  can  only  be  because 
these  wcrds  contain  the  reason  introduced  hy  for.  They  should  therefore  serve  to 
prove  that  the  kingdom  of  God  may  have  come  witliout  its  coming  being  remarked  ; 
and  this  is  wiiat  follows  fiom  its  internal,  spiritual  nature.  The  meaning  of  this 
regimen  is  therefore,  icithin  you.  Besides,  the  prep,  kvvui,  tcithin,  always  includes 
a  contrast  to  the  idea  tcithotit.  If,  therefore,  we  give  to  it  here  the  meaning  of  among, 
we  must  still  suppose  an  imderstood  contrast,  that  between  the  Jews  as  people 
•within,  and  the  Gentiles  as  people  without.  Tiiere  is  nothing  in  the  context  giving 
rise  to  such  an  antithesis.  In  giving  to  ^jto?  the  meaning  within,  we  aie  led  back 
to  the  idea  expressed  in  the  answer  of  Jesus  to  Nicodemus  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  which  conflims  our  explanation.  ''ECrl 
is,  like  epx^rat,  the  present  of  essence. 

2d.  Vers.  22-o7.  The  Coming  of  the  Kingdom. — To  the  Pharisees  Jesus  declared 
what  they  did  not  know,  the  spiritual  essence  of  the  kingdom.  But  Jesus  did  not 
mean  to  deny  the  external  and  final  appearing  of  a  divine  state  of  things.  To  de- 
vel:-p  this  other  side  of  the  truth,  He  turns  to  His  disciples,  because  it  is  only  to 
tho.se  who  po.'^sess  something  of  His  spiritual  life  that  He  can  speak  profitably  of  His 
future  return.  Thus  it  is  that  the  treatment  of  the  same  subject  is  modified,  accord- 
ing to  the  character  of  those  wliom  Jesus  addresses.  Besides,  the  abstract  idea  of 
the  coming  of  the  kingdom  is  now  presented  as  the  reappearing  of  Jesus  Himself. 


4r04  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

The  truth  could  only  be  expounded  iu  this  aspect  to  believers.  We  may  see  with 
whal  justice  the  Revue  de  Theologie  iilleges  :  "  The  first  two  verses  (vers.  20,  21)  are  in 
couiraiJ.iclioii  to  the  test,  ami  have  uo  conuection  willi  what  follows  !"  (1SG7,  p.  880). 

The  discourse  of  Jesus  bears  on  three  points  :  \st.  When  and  how  will  Jesus  re- 
appear (vers.  33-25)?  2d.  What  will  be  the  state  of  the  woild  then  (vers.  36-;]0)  ? 
dd.  What  will  l)e  the  moral  condition  of  salvation  in  that  last  crisis  (vers.  31-37)? 

Vers.  22-25.*  "  And  He  said  unto  the  di&ciples,  The  days  will  come  when  ye  shall 
desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  ye  shall  not  see  it.  23.  And 
they  shall  say  to  you,  See  here  !  or,  see  there  !  go  not  after  them,  nor  follow  them. 
34.  For  as  the  lightning,  that  lighteueth  out  of  the  one  part  under  heaven,  shineth 
unto  the  other  part  under  heaven  ;  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  man  be  in  His  day.  35. 
But  first  must  He  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  of  this  generation."  The 
course  of  thought  is  this  :  The  kingdom,  in  the  sense  understood  by  ihe  Pharisees, 
will  not  come  immediately  (ver.  33)  ;  and  when  it,  shall  come,  no  uncertainty  will  be 
felt  about  His  appearing  (vers.  33,  34).     Ver.  35  returns  to  the  idea  of  ver.  22. 

'H/iiefjai  (ver.  33),  days,  long  days,  during  which  there  will  be  time  to  sigh  for  the 
visible  presence  of  the  Master.  Comp.  5  ;  35.  The  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the 
Son  of  man  may  refer  either  to  the  painful  regret  of  the  Church  when  she  recalls  the 
happiness  enjoyed  by  her  while  He  was  present  on  the  earth,  or  to  her  impatient 
wailing  for  some  manifestation  from  on  high  announcing  that  the  day  is  at  length 
near.  Substantially,  the  first  meaning  leads  to  the  second,  as  regret  does  to  desire  ; 
but  the  second  idea  is  the  dominant  one,  according  to  the  context.  When  the 
apostles  or  their  successors  shall  have  passed  a  long  time  on  the  earth  in  the  absence 
of  their  Lord,  when  they  shall  be  at  the  end  of  their  j^reaching  and  their  apologetic 
demoustratiuns,  and  when  around  them  scepticism,  materialism,  pantheism,  and 
deism  shall  m!)re  and  mor-e  gain  the  ascendency,  then  there  shall  be  formed  in  their 
souls  an  ardent  longing  for  that  Lord  who  keeps  silence  and  remains  hid  ;  they  will 
call  for  some  diifiue  manifestation,  a  single  one  (lu'cxv),  like  that  of  the  old  days,  to 
refresh  their  hearts  and  sustain  the  fainting  Church.  But  to  the  end,  the  task  will 
be  to  Walk  bj'-  faith  (ovh  oipsd^e,  ye  shall  not  see).  Need  we  bo  astonished  if  in  such 
circumstances  the  faith  of  the  great  majority  verges  to  extinction  (18  :  8)  ? 

With  this  heightening  of  expectation  among  believers  there  will  correspond  the 
seducing  appeals  of  falsehood  (ver.  23).  Literally  taken,  this  verse  is  in  contradic- 
tion to  ver.  31.  But  ver.  31  related  to  the  spirit iral  kingdom,  whose  coming  cannot 
be  observed  or  proclaimed,  while  the  sul»ject  now  in  question  is  the  visible  kingdom, 
the  appearing  of  which  shall  be  falsely  announced.  Why  shall  those  announcements 
be  necessarily  false?  Ver.  24  gives  the  explanation.  Gess  exhibits  the  applieation  of 
this  teaching,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  folly  of  the  Romanists  who  will  have  no  Church 
without  a  visible  head,  and,  on  the  other,  to  that  of  Protestant  sectaries  who  expect 
the  appearing  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to-day  in  Palestine,  to-morrow  in  Russia,  etc. 

Ver.  24.  The  Lord's  coming  will  be  universal  and  instantaneous.  Men  do  not  run 
here  or  there  to  see  a  flash  of  lightning  :  it  shines  simultaneously  on  all  points  of  the 
horizon.  So  the  Lord  will  appear  at  the  same  moment  to  the  view  of  all  living.  His 
appearances  as  the  Risen  One  in  the  upper  room,  when  closed,  are  the  prelude  of  this 
last  advent.     But  if  He  is  to  return,. He  must  go  away,  go  away  peisecuted.     This 

*  Ver.  23.  !!i.  B^  L..  idov  exEi  before  il^ov  co^f.  5  Mjj.  omit  ?;  before  iSov.  !*. 
M.,  Hat  idov.  Ver  24.  All  the  Mjj.,  D.  excepted,  omit  nai  after  f.6rai.  B.  D. 
It"'"',  omit  Ev  T7]  rj).iEpa  avrov. 


CHAP.  XVII.  :  22-37.  405 

is  tlie  subject  of  ver.  25.  This  generation  can  designate  no  otlicr  than  tliu  Jewish 
C(U)Ienip()iaiies  of  the  Messiah.  A  separation  is  about  to  supervene  between  Israel 
and  its  now  pie^ent  Messiah.  And  lliis  rejection  of  the  Messiali  by  His  own  people 
will  be  the  signal  for  the  invisibility  of  His  kingdom.  Comp.  the  antithesis  13  :  35 
(tlie  faith  of  Israel  bringing  back  the  Messiah  from  heaven).  How  long  will  this  nb- 
normal  state  last  ?  Jesus  Himself  knows  not.  IJut  He  declares  that  this  epoch  of 
His  invisil)ility  will  terminate  in  an  entirely  materialistic  sjlate  of  things,  vers.  2U-30, 
which  will  be  brought  to  an  end  suddenly  by  His  advent. 

Vers.  2(5-30.*  "  And  as  it  was  in  llie  days  of  Noe,  so  shall  it  be  also  in  the  days  of 
the  Sou  of  man.  27.  They  did  eat,  they  drank,  they  married,  and  weregiven  in  mar- 
riage, until  tlie  day  that  Noe  entered  into  the  ark  ;  and  the  Hood  came,  and  de^troyefl 
them  all.  28.  Likewise  also,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Lot  ;  they  did  eat,  Ihey  drank, 
they  bought,  they  sold,  they  planted,  they  builded  ;  29.  But  the  same  day  thai  Lot 
went  out  of  Sodom  it  rained  fiie  and  brimstone  from  heaven,  and  destroyed  them  all. 
30.  Even  thus  shall  it  be  in  the  day  when  the  Sou  of  man  is  revealed."  While  be- 
iievers  sigh  with  growing  ardor  for  the  return  of  their  Lord,  carnal  security  more  or 
less  complete  takes  possession  of  the  race.  It  is  an  epoch  like  those  which  have  pre- 
ceded all  the  great  catastrophes  of  history.  The  business  of  earthly  life  is  carried 
through  with  regularity  ;  but  religious  feeling  gradually  disappears  from  the  heart  of 
men  who  have  become  secularized.  The  days  of  Noe.  denote  the  120  years  during 
which  the  ark  was  a-buildiug.  'Ec^eyai^nXovro  strictl}^  means,  Kcreyiveninmarriafie, 
that  is  to  say,  young  daughters  by  their  parents.  The  finite  verbs  i'/Odiuv,  titivov 
(ver.  28),  efJpa^E  (ver.  29),  are  in  apposition  to  kyei'Ezo,  and,  as  such,  aie  still  depend- 
ent on  ft??.  The  apodosis  does  not  occur  till  ver,  30.  This  form  is  analogous  to  the 
Hebrew  construction  which  we  have  so  often  observed  in  Luke  (iXf^^'^jj  with  u  finite 
verb  for  its  subject).  "E/Hpecs  is  generally  regarded  as  active  :  God  caused  it  to  rain. 
Comp.  Gen.  19  :  24,  xai  Ht'pioS  e/jpez£v  (Matt.  5  :  45).  But  as  in  this  case  the  aTt 
ovpavoij  would  be  pleonastic,  and  as  Bpexoo  is  found  in  Polybius  and  the  later 
Greek  authors  in  a  neuter  sense,  it  is  more  natural  to  adopt  this  sense  here,  by  which 
we  at  the  same  time  preserve  the  parallelism  between  dTtajXEdev  (subject,  nvp  xai 
6eioy)  and  the  aTtodXedev,  ver.  27  (subject,  naraxXvcjuuS).  The  word  aTtoxaAuTt- 
TEvai  supposes  that  Jesus  is  present,  but  that  a  veil  conceals  His  person  from  the 
view  of  the  world.  All  at  once  the  veil  is  lifted,  and  the  glorified  Lord  is  visible  to 
all.  This  term  occurs  again  in  the  same  sense,  1  Cor.  1  :  7  ;  2  Thess.  1  :  7  ;  1  Pet. 
1:7;  and  perhaps  1  Cor.  3  :  13.  The  point  of  comparison  between  this  event  and 
the  examples  quoted  is  the  surprise  caused  in  the  bosom  of  security.  Matt.  24  :  37-39 
contains  a  passage  parallel  to  vers.  26,  27  (the  example  of  Noe).  The  idea  is  the 
same  ;  l)ut  the  terms  are  so  different  that  they  forbid  us  to  assume  that  the  two 
editions  proceed  from  the  same  text. 

Vers.  31-37. f  "  In  that  day,  he  which  shall  he  upon  the  housetop,  and  his  stuEF 

*  Ver.  27.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  ec.Fyai.iiZ,ovTo  (T.  R.)  and  Byai^nZovro 
(Alex.).  Ver.  28.  i*.  B.  L.  R.  X.,  wa^w?  instead  of  xaia<;.  Ver.  30.  The  mss.  are 
divided  between  xcxva  Tcxvra(T.  R. )  and  xaza  va  avra. 

\  Ver.  32.  B.  L.  It""'*.,  nef>nr(U7}nnaOni  instead  of  aunni.  Ver.  33.  !*.  B.  D.  R.  3 
Mnn.  omit  avTTjv  after  a-jo?  fjTj  or  nTo?e'7et.  Ver.  34.  All  the  Mjj.,  B.  excepted.  £is 
instead  of  o  ?;;.  Ver.  35.  ^*  1  Mn.  omit  this  verse.  Ver.  30.  This  verse  is  wanting 
in  all  the  Mjj.,  D.  U.  excepted,  in  several  Mnn.  Itr'"iq"e  (f;,ken  from  Matthew). 
Ver.  37.  E.  G.  H.  25  Mnn.,  nTufza  instead  of  noma.  i^.  B.  L.  U.  A.  30  Mnn.  add  kui 
after  e««.     S.  B.  L.  Q.,  ezicwaxOrjooi'Tai  instead  of  awaxOrjcoirai. 


406  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

iu  the  house,  let  him  not  come  down  to  take  it  away  :  and  he  that  is  in  the  field,  let 
him  likewise  not  return  back.  33.  Remember  Lot's  wife.  33.  Whosoever  shall  seek 
to  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it  ;  and  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life,  shall  preserve  it.  34. 
I  tell  you,  iu  that  night  there  sliall  be  two  men  in  one  bed  ;  the  one  shall  be  taken> 
and  the  other  shall  be  left.  35.  Two  women  shall  be  grinding  together  ;  the  one 
shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  left.  3G,  37.  And  they  answered  and  said  \mto  Him, 
Where,  Lord  ?  And  He  said  unto  them,  Wheresoever  the  body  is,  tliither  will  tlie 
eagles  be  gathered  together."  Here  is  the  praclioal  conclusion  of  the  discourse. 
I  Jesus  describes  that  disi)osition  of  mind  which,  in  this  last  crisis,  sliall  be  the  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  The  Lord  passes  with  His  heaveoly  retinue.  He  attracts  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  who  are  w'illing  and  ready  to  join  Him  ;  but  it  transpires  iu 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  Whoever  is  not  already  loosened  from  earthly  things,  so  as 
to  haste  away  without  hesitation,  taking  flight  toward  Him  freely  and  joyously, 
remains  behind.  Thus  precisely  had  Lot's  wife  perished  wilh  the  goods,  from  which 
she  could  not  part.  Agreeably  to  His  habitual  method,  .Jesus  ciiaracterizes  this  dis- 
position of  mind  by  a  series  of  external  acts,  in  which  it  is  concretely  realized.  The 
Jievue  de  Theologie  (passage  quoted,  p.  337)  condemns  Luke  for  here  applying  to  the 
Parousia  the  counsel  to  flee,  which  has  no  meaning,  except  as  applied  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  (Matt.  24).  This  accusation  is  false,  for  there  is  no  mention  of 
fleeing  from  one  part  of  the  earth  to  another,  but  of  rising  from  the  earth  to  the  Lord, 
as  He  passes  and  disappears  :  "  Let  him  not  come  down  (from  the  roof)  ;  but,  forget- 
ting all  that  is  in  the  house,  let  him  be  ready  to  follow  the  Lord  !"  So  he  who  is  in 
the  fields  is  not  to  attempt  to  return  home  to  carry  upward  witli  him  some  object  of 
value.  The  Lord  is  there  ;  if  any  one  belongs  to  Him  let  him  leave  everything  at 
once  to  accompany  Him  (Matt.  24  :  18  :  the  laborer  should  not  even  return  to  seek  his 
dress,  which  he  laid  aside  to  work).  This  saying,  especially  in  the  form  of  Matthew, 
evidently  referred  to  the  Parousia,  which  shall  come  suddenly,  and  not  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  which  will  be  preceded  by  an  armed  invasion  and  a  long  war.* 
Luke's  context  is  therefore  preferable  to  Matthew's.  Ver.  ^3.  To  save  one' s  life,  by  -3/ 
riveting  it  to  some  object  with  which  it  is  identified,  is  the  means  of  losing  it,  of  being 
left  behind  with  this  perishing  world  ;  to  give  one's  life,  by  quittin;^  everything  at 
once,  is  the  only  means  of  saving  it,  by  laying  hold  of  the  Lord  who  is  passing.  See 
on  9  :  24.  Jesus  here  substitutes  for  the  phrase  to  save  his  life  the  word  (uuyovEiv, 
literally,  to  give  it  birth  alive.  The  word  is  that  by  wliich  the  LXX.  express  the  Piel 
and  Hiphil  of  nTI'  ^^  ^^^^-  Here  it  is  having  the  natural  life  born  again,  that  it  may 
be  reproduced  in  the  form  of  spiritual,  glorified,  eternal  life.  The  absolute  sacritice 
of  the  natural  life  is  the  means  of  this  transformation.  Here  is  a  word  of  unfathom- 
able depth  and  of  daily  application. 

At  this  lime  a  selection  will  take  place  (ver.  34) — a  selection  which  will  instan- 
taneously break  all  earthly  relations,  even  the  most  intimate,  and  from  which  there 
will  arise  a  new  grouping  of  humanity  in  two  new  families  or  societies,  the  taki'ii  and 
the  left.  Af'yw  v/ilv,  I  fell  yon,  announces  something  weighty.  Cleek  thinks,  that  as 
the  subject  under  discussion  is  the  return  of  the  Lord  as  judge,  to  betaken  is  to 
perish,  to  be  left  is  to  escape.     But  the  middle  napa?M/zi3dvecQai,  to  take  to  one's  self,  to 

*  Our  author  here  speaks  with  a  confidence  not  shared  by  the  bulk  of  commenta- 
tors, and  puts  a  force  into  the  reference  to  "  the  stuff,"  which  is  not  necessarilv  in  it. 
Tlie  destruction  of  Jerusalem  foreshadows  features  of  the  judgment,  and  is  not 
overlooked. — J.  U. 


CHAP.   XVII 1.  :  1-8.  407 

welcome  as  one's  own,  can  only  have  a  favorable  mcanini;  (John  14  :  3).  And  Si. 
Paul  certainly  understood  the  word  iu  this  sense  ;  for  it  is  probably  not  without  X'cla- 
tioD  to  this  saying  tliat  he  teaches,  1  Thess.  4  :  17,  the  taking  up  into  the  air  of  the 
believers  who  are  alive  at  the  return  of  Christ ;  it  is  the  ascension  of  the  disciples,  as 
tiie  complement  of  tiieir  JLaster's.  'A(ptevni,  to  forsake,  to  leave  behind,  as  13  :  So. 
The  image  of  ver.  o4  supposes  that  the  Parousia  takes  place  at  night.  Ver.  35.  on 
the  contrary,  supposes  it  hapiiening  during  the  day.  It  matters  little.  For  one 
hemisphere  it  will  be  in  the  day  ;  for  the  other,  at  nlgiit.  The  idea  remains  tin; 
same  :  whether  he  is  sleeping,  or  whether  he  is  woikiug,  man  ougiit  to  be  sullicieuliy 
disengaged  to  give  himself  over  without  duhiy  to  the  Lord  who  draws  him.  Hand- 
mills  were  used  among  the  ancients.  When  the  nullstone  was  large,  two  persons 
turned  it  together.  Ver.  3G,  whicli  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  Mjj.,  is  taken  from 
the  parallel  passage  iu  Matthew.  Thus  the  beings  who  shall  have  been  most  closely 
connected  here  below,  shall,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  be  jjarted  forever.     . 

The  apostle's  question  (ver.  37)  is  one  of  curiosity.  Although  Jesus  had  already 
answered  it  in  ver.  24,  He  takes  advantage  of  it  to  close  the  conversation  by  a  declar- 
ation which  applies  it  to  the  whole  woild.  The  natural  phenomenon,  described  by 
Job  39  :  30,  is  used  by  Jesus  to  symbolize  the  universality  of  the  judgment  pro- 
claimed. The  carcass  is  humanity  cntirelj'  secular,  and  destitute  of  tlie  life  of  God 
(vers.  2G-30  ;  comp.  9  :  GO,  Zf<  ?/i(2  (fcrtc?  .  .  .  ).  The  eagles  represent  punishmen; 
alighting  on  such  a  society.  There  is  no  allusion  in  this  figure  to  the  Roman  stand- 
ards, for  there  is  no  reference  iu  the  preceding  discourse  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Comp.  also  ]\Iatt.  24  :  28,  where  this  saying  applies  exclusively  to  the  Parousia. 
The  eagle,  properly  so  called,  does  not  live  in  flocks,  it  is  true,  and  does  not  feed  on 
carrion.  But  ae-oS,  as  well  as  t^^.  Pro  v.  30  :  17,  may  (as  Furrer  shows,  "  Bedeut. 
der  Bibl.  Geogr. "  p.  13)  denote  the  great  vulture  {gyps  fulvus),  equal  to  the  eagle  in 
size  and  strength,  which  is  seen  in  hundreds  on  the  plain  of  Gennesareth.  Some 
Fathers  have  applied  the  image  of  the  body  to  Jesus  glorified,  and  that  of  the  eagles 
to  the  saints  who  shall  accompany  Hicn  at  His  advent  ! 

3(f.  18  :  1-8.*  The  Widoto  and  tlie  Unjust  Judge. — This  parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke. 
The  formula  e/eye  <5^  Kai,  "furthermore,  bear  this  also,"  announces  it  as  the  con- 
clusion of  the  whole  discourse  17  :  20,  et  seq.  Weizsiicker  (p.  139)  and  Holtzmann 
(p.  132)  think  that  the  introduction,  ver.  1,  gives  this  parable  a  commonplace  appli- 
cation (the  duty  of  perseverance  in  prayer),  which  does  not  belong  to  the  original  idea 
of  this  discourse  (the  imminence  of  the  Parousia).  But  is  there  not  a  verj^  close  corre- 
spondence between  the  duty  of  persevering  prayer,  and  the  danger  which  the  Church 
runs  of  being  overcome  by  the  carnal  slumber  which  has  just  been  described  in  the 
preceding  portraiture  ?  The  Son  of  man  has  been  rejected  ;  He  has  gone  from  view  ; 
the  masses  are  plunged  in  gross  worldliness  ;  men  of  God  are  become  as  rare  as  iu 
Sodom.  What  is,  then,  the  position  of  the  Church  ?  That  of  a  widow  whose  only 
w^eapon  is  incessant  prayer.  It  is  only  by  means  of  this  intense  concentration  that 
faith  will  be  preserved.    But  such  is  precisely  the  disposition  which,  Jesus  fears, 

*  Ver.  1.  ».  B.  L.  M.  several  Mun.  It""i.  omit  nai  after  rfe.  15  Mjj.  60  Mnn.  add 
ovrovS  after  ■rrpnaevxEa'iai.  The  M6S.  are  divided  between  ikkukelv  ami  eyKnKeiv.  Ver. 
3.  The  Mjj.,  A.  excepted,  omit  rts  after  <h.  Ver.  4.  The  mss.  are  divided  oetween 
^Oe?.n'Jev  (f.  R.)  and  tj^jeaev  (Alex.).  Jii.  B.  L.  X.  ItP'e^i'i"",  oi'fSe  nvOouKov  instead  of 
Kai  avijpw-ov  ovk.  Ver.  7.  ii.  B.  L.  Q.,  avru  instead  of  TpoS  avrov.  L).  A.  B.  D.  L.  Q. 
X.  n.  3  MoQ.,  fiuKpoBv/iu  instead  of  piaKpo^Jv/j.ui'. 


408  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

may  not  be  found  even  in  the  Church  at  Ilis  return.  The  parable  is  therefore  placed 
here  most  appropriately,  and  the  introduclion  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  its  first 
intention.  Comp.  21  :  34-oG,  •where  we  find  the  same  ideas  in  correspondence — the 
danger  of  being  spiritually  overcharged  in  the  last  times,  and  the  duty  of  unceasing 
vigilance  and  prayer.  'EKKaKelv,  to  relax,  to  let  go,  not  to  hold  determinedly  to  one's 
,  rights,  like  the  widow. 

There  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  parable,  as  in  those  of  the  indiscreet  friend 
and  the  lost  sheep  (11  aud  15),  an  argument  a  fortiori :  "  Were  God  like  this  judge. 
He  would  not  resist  the  Church's  believing  prayer  ;  how  much  less,  being  what  He 
is  !"  The  condition  of  the  Church  after  the  Lord's  departure  is  like  that  of  a  tcidow, 
and  of  a  widow  deprived  of  her  rights.  The  Lord  has  acquired  for  His  own  glorious 
prerogatives,  which  have  not  yet  passed  into  the  domain  of  facts,  aud  the  enjoyment 
of  which,  if  the}'  esteem  them  at  their  just  value,  they  should  claim  without  ceasing. 
'E/cJi/cfZv  (ver.  3)  ;  to  deliver  (?«)  by  a  judicial  sentence  ('Si/c??).  This  term  does  not 
therefore  include  the  notion  of  vengeance,  but  that  of  justice  to  be  rendered  to  the 
oppressed.  If  vKu7nu(eiv,  to  disfigure  the  face,  be  taken  iu  the  weakened  sense  of 
importuning,  it  will  be  necessary  to  understand  cis  te'AoS,  to  the  end:  "Lest  she 
importune  me  to  the  end  (indefinitely)."  But  Meyer  prefers  keeping  the  strict  sense, 
both  of  the  verb  and  of  cis  rt'/loc  (at  last) :  "  Lest  she  come  at  last  to  strike  me."  The 
participle  kpxofitvji,  coming  to  vie,  decides  in  favor  of  this  second  meaning.  There  is 
in  this  saying  a  touch  of  pleasantry.  Ver  6.  "'Hear:  for  there  is  a  lesson  to  be 
drawn  even  from  this  impious  language."  Ver.  7.  Tlie  continual  crying  of  the  elect 
recalls  tlie  ardent  desire  of  believers  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  17  :  22. 
The  elect  are  those  whom  God  has  drawn  by  the  calling  of  Jesus  from  the  bosom  of 
lost  humauitj^  agreeaijly  to  the  eternal  plan  of  salvation.  If  we  read  naKpobvfin 
(Alex.),  we  must  give  this  proposition  the  interrogative  meaning  :  "  Will  He  not  do 
right  .  .  .  and  will  He  be  slow  in  their  behalf,  that  is  to  say,  to  punish  those  who 
oppress  them  ?"  But  the  sense  which  must  thus  be  given  to  kn'  avTo'iS  is  not  natural. 
It  is  much  better,  therefore,  to  read  :  fioKpodv/xuv,  the  meaning  of  which  is  (wilh/ca/) : 
"  Though  He  restrain  His  anger  on  account  of  His  [oppressed]  elect."  God  suffers 
with  them  (Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ?)  ;  and  therefore  Jesus  can  say  of 
God.  that  He  restrains  Himself  on  their  account.  If,  then,  He  does  not  interpose 
immediately  to  deliver  them,  it  is  not  from  indifference  ;  it  is  from  long  suffering  to 
their  oppressors.  Comp.  2  Pet.  3:9.  It  is  nowhere  said  that  the  object  of  the  un- 
ceasing cry  of  the  elect  is  the  punisliment  of  their  adversaries,  which  would  not  be  in 
keeping  with  the  figure  of  the  parable  ;  it  is  their  own  deliverance,  by  their  being  put 
in  possession  of  the  heritage  to  which  they  are  entitled.  But  God,  it  is  true,  cannot 
grant  this  petition  without  breaking  the  power  of  those  who  stand  in  the  way  of  this 
act  of  justice.  It  is  to  this  aspect  of  His  answer  that  allusion  is  made  by  the 
fiaKpoSv/iieiv. 

'Ev  Tdxei,  speedily,  does  not  at  all  mean  that  the  limit  of  divine  forbearance  is  near, 
which  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  long  interval  of  time  announced  in  the  words, 
days  will  co7ne  .  .  .  (17  :  22).  The  word  rather  signifies,  that  the  hearing  once 
given,  the  deliverance  will  be  accomplished  with  small  delay,  in  the  twinkling  of  an 
eye  ;  comp.  Rom.  IG  :  20  (where,  too,  we  should  translate  not  shortly,  but  very 
quickly).  Uhjv  :  "  I  am  not  afraid  of  the  Judge  failing  in  His  dot}'.  The  onl}'  tl)ing 
which  makes  me  anxious  is  this,  lest  the  widow  fail  in  hers."  T;/i'  Tiianv  -.  not  some 
faith  in  general,  but  the  faith — that  special  faith  of  which  the  widow's  is  an  image. 


CJiAi'.   xviii.  :  'J-l-i.  409 

■U'liich,  in  spite  of  (he  judge's  obstinate  silence  and  ioiig  apparent  inrHflercnce,  pcrse- 
veies  in  claiming  its  right.  On  (he  earth,  in  (ijiiiDsilion  to  the  Son  of  man  who  comes 
again  from  heaven.  We  must  here  remi'mber  tlie  sad  picture  of  tlie  stale  of  luimaiiity 
al  this  epoch  (17  :  26-30).  Is  it  not  to  such  a  state  of  tilings  that  Jesus  also  makes 
ullusioQ,  3Iatt.  25  :  5  :  "  And  they  all  slumbered  and  slept"  ? 

Hilgenfeld  and  others  find  in  (his  paral)le  a  thirst  for  vengeance,  which  corre- 
sponds rather  with  the  furious  /-al  of  the  Apocalypse  llian  the  true  Pauline  feeling  of 
Luke.  This  passage  must  tli"iefoie  i)e  "  one  of  those  most  atieieut  i)arts  of  our 
Gnspel"  which  J>nke  liorrowed  from  a  Jewish  document.  Oiliers,  like  De  Wette,  Kce 
in  it.  on  the  contrary,  the  traces  of  a  later  perioii,  when  the  Cliurcii  liad  hecfjme  the 
victim  of  persecution.  But,  1.  This  ailiged  thirst  for  vengeance  nowhere  appears  in 
(he  te.\t.  2.  Our  passage  is  full  of  gentleness  in  compaiiscn  with  expressions  of 
indignation  used  by  Paul  himself  (liom.  2  :  4,  5,  8,  U  ;  1  Tliess.  3  :  15,  IG  ;  2  Tliess. 
1  :  8).  The  spirit  of  this  paiablc  is  therefore  not  in  the  least  opposed  to  that  of  the 
Pauime  Luke.  '6.  There  is  allusion,  no  doubt,  to  the  abnoimal  position  of  the 
Chin-oh  between  Christ's  departure  and  His  return,  but  not  to  persecution  strictly  so 
called. 

While  Hilgenfeld  affects  to  distinguish  in  this  piece  the  originally  Ebionite  pas- 
pages  (17  : 1-4,  II-H)  ;  18  :  1-8)  from  thti.se  which  are  of  Luke's  cciiiposilion  (17  ;  5-10, 
20-37  ;  18  : 1-14),  Yolkmar  ("  Evangel.  INlarcions,"  p.  203)  maintains  that  the  arrantre- 
ment  of  the  piece  is  systematic,  and  rests  on  the  well  known  Pauline  tiiad  :  love 
(17  :  1-i),  faith  (vers.  5-19),  hope  (ver.  30,  et  seg.).  But  it  is  easy  to  see  how  forced  it 
is  to  apply  any  such  scheme  to  those  different  accounts. 

3.  The  Parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican:  18  :  9-14.— Vers.  9-14.*  This 
parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  Who  are  those  ra'ts,  certain,  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ? 
They  cannot  be  Pharisees.  Luke  would  have  named  them,  as  at  16  :  14  ;  and  Jesus 
■would  not  have  presented  to  them  as  an  example,  in  a  parable,  one  of  themselves, 
while  designating  him  expressly  in  this  character.  Bleek  thinks  that  they  were  disci- 
ples of  Jesus.  But  Luke  would  have  equally  designated  them  (16  :  1).  They  were 
therefore  probably  members  of  the  company  following  Jesus,  who  had  not  yet  openly 
declared  for  Him,  and  who  manifested  a  haughtj''  distance  to  certain  sinners,  known 
to  be  such,  who  were  in  the  company  with  them  ;  comp.  19  :  7.  The  word  araOeis, 
standing  erect  (ver.  11),  indicates  a  posture  of  assurance,  and  even  boldness  (comp. 
standing  afar  off,  ver.  13).  Tlphi  iavrfiv  does  not  depend  on  araOeii  :  "  standing 
aside,  at  a  distance,  from  the  vulgar" — it  would  have  required  KaO'  lavrov  (Meyer) — 
but  on  "irpocsTjvx^To  :  "he  j)rayed,  speaking  thus  to  himself  .  .  ."  It  was  less  a 
pra3'er  in  which  he  gave  thanks  to  God,  than  a  congratulation  which  he  addressed  to 
himself.  True  thanksgiving  is  always  accompanied  by  a  feeling  of  humiliation. 
The  Pharisees  fasted  on  the  Monday  and  Thursday  of  every  week.  KrdaOat  denotes 
the  act  of  acquiring  rather  than  that  of  possessing  ;  it  therefore  refers  here  to  the 
produce  of  the  fields  (11  :  42).  To  strike  the  breast  :  an  emblem  of  the  stroke  of  death 
which  the  sinner  feels  that  he  has  merited  at  the  hand  of  God.  The  heart  is  struck, 
as  the  seat  of  per.sonal  life  and  of  sin.  Af')w  ?V'>  (ver.  14) :  "  I  tell  you,  strange  as  it 
may  appear  .  ,  ."  The  idea  of  justification,  that  is  to  say,  of  a  righteousness 
bestowed  on  the  sinner  by  a  divine  sentence,  l)clongs  even  to  liie  O.  T.  Comp.  Gen. 
15  :  G  ;  Isa.  1  :  8,  53  :  11.     Li  the  received  reading  t)  tKelvoi,  i)  is  governed  by  na/.7.ov, 

*  Ver.  9.  The  mps.  are  divided  between  eiirev  and  ei~ev  6e  koi.  Ver.  11.  Si. 
j^pUrique^  omit  —poi  FovToi'.  Ver.  12.  ii.  B.,  arrnAFunTeytj  instead  of  a-nthKnTu.  Ver. 
13.  !!^.  B.  G.  L.  5  3Inn.  Syr"="".,  o  ih  Te/.o^'rji  instend  of  kqi  o  TF/.uni';.  8  Mjj.  15 
Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  eii  befnre  ro  cr-q^joi.  Ver.  14.  Instead  of  tj  ekeivo';  (T.  11.  with 
some  Mnn.),  16  Mjj.  and  150  Mnn.  read  t]  yap  eKsivog,  and  S^,  B.  L.,  Trap'  ekelvov. 


410  COMMENTARY   ON    ST.   LUKE. 

rather,  understood.  The  suppression  of  the  adverb  rather  serves  to  prevent  the  idea 
that  tlie  Pharisee  also  received  his  share  of  justitication.  In  the  reading  ?}  ydp  eicelvoS 
(more  strongly  supported  than  the  others),  ?}  is  explained  in  tlie  same  way,  and  ydp 
has  as  is  often  the  case  an  interrogative  value  :  "  For  think  you  that  he  (the  Pharisee) 
could  be  justified?"  This  somewhat  difficult  turn  of  expression  has  occasioned  the 
Alex,  correction  Trap'  'nKdvov.  Our  Lord  loves  to  close  His  parables  with  axioms 
formally  expiessing  the  fundamental  laws  of  moral  life  :  God  will  overthrow  all  self- 
exaliation  ;  but  He  will  turn  in  love  to  all  sincere  humiliation. 

Undoubtedly  if  Luke's  object  was  to  point  out  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  the  histori- 
cal fonndatiiins  for  St.  Paul's  teaching,  this  piece  corresponds  most  exactly  to  his 
inteulitra.  But  no  aigument  can  be  d'rawn  tlierefrom  contrary  to  the  truth  of  Uie 
nariative.  For  the  idea  of  justification  by  faith  is  one  of  the  axioms  not  only  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  of  that  of  the  O.  T.  (comp.  besides  the  passages  quoted,  Hab. 
2  :  4). 

4.  The  Children  Irought  to  Jesus:  18  :  15-17.— Vers.  15-17.*  It  is  here  that 
Luke's  narrative  rejoins  Matthew's  (19  :  14)  and  Mark's  (10  :  13),  after  having 
diverged  from  ihem  at  9  :  51.  Jesus  is  in  Perea.  Of  his  sojourn  in  this  province 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  as  yet  related  only  one  fact — the  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees  regarding  divorce,  summarily  reproduced  by  Luke  16  :  13-19. 

By  the  phrase  :  even  infants  {kqI  to.  .  .  .),  ver.  15,  Luke  would  indicate  that 
the  consideration  enjoyed  hy  Jesus  had  reached  its  height.  Mothers  brought  him 
even  their  nurslings.  The  article  before /3p£'^77  denotes  the  category.  The  apostles 
think  that  this  is  to  abuse  the  goodness  and  time  of  their  Master.  Mark,  who  likes 
to  depict  moral  impressions,  describes  the  indignation  felt  by  Jesus  (i/yavuK-r/ae)  on 
perceiving  this  feeling.  Luke  is  less  severe — the  evangelist  who  is  accused  of  abus- 
ing the  Twelve.  After  calling  back  those  little  ones  who  were  being  sent  away  {avra) 
Jesus  instructs  His  disciples  in  respect  of  them.  Matthew,  as  usual,  summarizes. 
There  is  in  children  a  twofold  receptivity,  negative  and  positive,  humility  and  confi- 
dence. By  labor  expended  on  ourselves,  we  are  to  return  to  those  dispositions  which 
are  natural  to  the  child.  The  pronoun  tuv  tolovtuv,  of  such,  does  not  refer  to  other 
children,  such  as  those  present,  but  to  all  those  who  voluntarily  put  on  the  disposi- 
tions indicated.  Jesus,  according  to  Mark,  clasped  those  children  tenderly  in  His 
arms,  and  put  his  hands  on  them,  blessing  them.  Matthew  speaks  only  of  the  impo- 
sition of  hands.  These  touching  details  are  omitted  by  Luke.  For  what  reason,  if 
he  knew  them  ?  They  agreed  so  well  with  the  spirit  of  his  Gospel  !  Volkmar  ("  Die 
jGvangel,"  p.  487)  explains  this  omission  by  the  prosaic  character  of  Luke  (!). 
According  to  the  same  author,  these  little  children  represent  the  Gentiles  saved  by 
grace.     Party  dogmatics,  even  in  this  the  simplest  narrative  of  the  Gospel  ! 

5.  The  Rich  Young  Man  :  vers.  18-30.— In  the  three  Syn.  this  piece  immediately 
follows  the  preceding  (Matt.  19  :  16  ;  Mark  10  :  17),  Oral  tradition  had  connected 
the  two,  perhaps  because  there  existed  between  them  a  real  chronological  succession. 
Three  parts  :  1st.  The  conversation  with  the  young  man  (vers.  18-2S)  ;  2d.  The  con- 
versation which  takes  place  in  regard  to  him  (vers.  24-37)  ;  3d.  The  conversation  of 
Jesus  with  the  disciples  regarding  themselves  (vers.  28-30). 

*  Ver.  15.  i^.  B.  D.  G.  L.  some  Mnn.,  e-^renpiuv  instead  of  ensrifiijaav.  Ver.  16.  i^. 
B.  D.  G.  L.  4  Mnn.  Syr^'^''.,  TipoaeKaXEaaTo  (or  .  .  .  /slto)  avra  ?,eyuv  instead  of 
7rpo(7KaleGnu€Pni  nvra  elttev. 


CHAl".    XVIIl.   ;  li)~-^3.  4iX 

1st.  Vers.  18-23.*  The  Jiic7i  Toung  Man.—Lvike  gives  this  man  the  title  apxuv, 
chief,  which  probably  signifies  here,  president  of  the  synagogue.  Matthew  and  Mark 
simply  say  di.  Later.  3latthevv  calls  him  a  young  man  (ver.  20).  Ills  arrival  is 
given  with  dramatic  effect  by  Mark  ;  lie  came  runnimj,  and  kneeled  doicn  before  Him. 
lie  sincerely  de.slred  salvatKm,  and  he  imagmed  that  some  generous  action,  some 
great  sacrifice,  would  secure  Ihls  highest  good  ;  and  this  hope  supposes  that  ni:ui  has 
power  ot  himself  to  do  good  ;  that  therefore  he  is  radically  good.  Tliis  is  what  is 
iiniilied  in  his  apostrophe  to  Jesus  :  good  master  ;  for  it  is  the  man  in  Ilim  whom  he 
llius  salutes,  knowing  Ilim  as  yet  in  no  other  character.  Jesus,  by  refusing  this  title 
in  the  false  sense  in  which  it  is  given  Him,  does  not  accuse  Himself  of  sin.  as  has 
been  alleged.  If  He  had  had  a  conscience  burdened  with  some  trespass,  lie  would 
have  avowed  it  explicitly.  But  Jesus  reminds  him  that  all  goodness  in  man,  as  in 
every  creature  whatsoever,  must  flow  from  God.  This  axiom  is  the  very  foundation 
of  ilonotheism.  Thereby  He  strikes  directly  at  the  j'oung  man's  fundamental  error. 
So  far  as  Jesus  is  concerned,  the  question  of  His  i>ersonal  goodness  depends  solely  on 
the  consideration  whether  His  inward  dependence  on  that  God,  the  only  good,  is 
cc^mplete  or  partial.  If  it  is  complete,  Jesus  is  good,  but  with  a  goodness  Avhich  is 
that  of  God  Himself  operating  in  Him.  His  answer  does  not  touch  this  personal  side 
of  the  question.  In  Matthew,  at  least  according  to  the  Alex,  reading,  which  is  prob- 
ably the  true  one,  the  word  good  is  omitted  in  the  joung  man's  address,  and  the 
answer  of  Jesus  is  conceived  in  these  terms  :  "  Wliy  askest  thou  me  about  wliat  is 
good?  One  only  is  good."  Which  may  signify  :  "  Good  is  being  joined  to  God, 
the  only  good  ;"  or  :  "  Good  is  fulfilling  the  commandments  of  God,  the  only  good 
Being."  These  two  explanations  are  botli  unnatural.  Even  Bleek  does  not  hesitate 
heie  to  prefer  the  form  of  Luke  and  Mark.  That  of  Matthew  is  perhaps  a  modifica- 
tion arising  from  the  fear  of  inferences  hostile  to  the  purity  of  Jesus,  which  might  be 
drawn  from  the  form  of  His  answer,  as  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  the  two 
other  Syn. 

Jesus  has  just  rectified  the  young  man's  radical  mistake.  Now  He  replies  to  his 
question.  The  work  to  be  done  is  to  love.  Jesus  quotes  the  second  table,  as  beaiing 
on  works  of  a  more  external  and  palpal)le  kind,  and  consequently  more  like  one  of 
those  which  tlie  young  man  expected  to  be  mentioned.  This  answer  of  Jesus  is  ear- 
nest ;  for  to  love  is  to  live  '  (See  at  10  :  28  )  The  onlj'  question  is  how  we  can  attain 
1o  it.  But  Jesus  proceeds  like  a  wise  instructor.  Far  from  ariesting  on  their  way 
those  who  believe  in  theirown  strength.  He  encourages  them  to  prosecute  it  failhfully 
to  the  very  end,  knowing  well  that  if  they  are  sincere  they  shall  by  the  hue  die  to  the 
law  (Gal.  2  :  19).  As  Gcss  says  :  "  To  take  the  law  in  thorough  earnest  is  the  true  way 
to  come  to  .Tesus  Christ."  The  young  man's  reply  (ver.  21)  testifies,  undoubtedly, 
great  moral  ignorance,  but  also  nolile  sincerity.  He  knows  not  the  spiritual  meaning 
of  the  commandments,  and  thinks  that  he  has  really  fulfilled  them.  Here  occurs  the 
inimitable  stroke  of  Mark's  pencil:  "And  Jesus,  beholding  him,  loved  him." 
"When  critics  wish  to  make  out  Mark  to  be  the  compiler  of  the  two  other  evangelists, 
they  are  obliged  to  say,  with  De  Welle,  that  Mark  himself,  inventing  this  amiable 

*  Ver.  20.  10  :Mjj.  1~)  Mnn.  It»"'«.  Vg.  omit  ffou  after  uj^npa.  Ver.  21.  ».  A.  B. 
L.  2  ^Inn.,  e6v/n^a  instead  of  e6v7.ni;nuj]v.  Ver.  22.  !*.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  omit 
-avra  after  (iKoinai  f5e.  Ji.  F.  H.  V.  Several  Mnn.,  on  instead  of  eri.  The  Mss.  are 
divided  between  Jt«(5o?  and  ''o?  (taken  from  the  parallels),  and  between  ovpavu  (T.  R.J 
and  cnipavoti  (Alex.).     Ver.  23.  i*.  B.  L.,  eyfVTjOij  instead  of  eyeiero. 


■l\2  COMMENTAliY    Oii    ST.   LUKE. 

answer,  has  ascribed  to  Jesus  his  own  feelings.  AVe  see  much  rather  in  this  saying, 
one  of  those  strokes  which  reveal  the  source  whence  the  narratives  of  Mark  proceed, 
and  which  must  have  been  one  very  near  the  person  of  Jesus.  It  was  an  aposlle  wlio 
was  following  the  impressions  of  Jesus  as  they  depicted  themselves  in  His  counte- 
nance, and  who  cauglit  as  it  passed  the  look  of  tenderness  which  He  cast  on  this 
person  so  sincere  and  so  innocent.  This  look  of  love  was  also  a  scrutinizing  look 
(ifiSuipa'i  avTU),  Mark  5  :  31),  by  which  Jesus  discerned  the  good  and  bad  qualities  of 
the  heart,  and  which  diclaled  to  Him  the  following  saying.  The  cJf,  with  UKovaai 
(■/er.  32),  is  adversative  and  progressive.  It  announces  a  new  resolution  taken  by  the 
Lord.  He  determines  to  call  this  man  into  the  number  of  His  permanent  disciples. 
The  real  subslaiuteof  His  answer,  indeed,  is  not  the  order  to  distribute  his  goods,  but 
the  call  to  follow  Him.  The  giving  away  of  his  money  is  only  the  condition  of  enter- 
ing upon  that  new  career  which  is  open  to  him  (see  at  10  :  61,  12  :  33).  In  the  pro- 
posal which  He  makes  to  him,  Jesus  observes  the  character  which  best  corresponds 
to  the  desire  expressed  by  the  young  man.  He  asked  of  Him  some  woik  to  do  ; 
and  Jesus  points  out  one,  and  that  decisive,  which  perfect] 3' corresponds  to  his  object, 
inasmuch  as  it  assures  him  of  salvation.  To  disengage  one's  self  from  everything  in 
order  to  follow  Jesus  conclusively — such  is  really  salvation,  life.  The  formal  corre- 
spondence of  this  answer  to  the  young  man's  thought  appears  in  the  expression.  One 
thing  thou  lackest  (Luke  and  Mark)  ;  and  more  clearly  still  in  that  of  Matthew,  If  thou 
wilt  he  perfect,  go  .  .  .  Undoubtedly,  according  to  the  view  of  Jesus,  man  cannot 
do  more  or  better  than  fulfil  the  law  (Matt.  5  :  17,  48).  Only  the  law  must  be  under- 
stood not  in  the  letter,  but  in  the  spirit  (Matt.  5).  The  perfection  to  which  Jesus 
calls  the  young  man  is  not  the  fulfilling  of  a  law  superior  to  the  law  strict!}^  so  called, 
but  the  real  fulfiljiug,  iu  opposition  to  that  external,  literal  fulfilling  whi  h  tlie  young 
man  already  had  (ver.  21).  This  one  thing  which  he  lacks  is  the  spirit  of  the  law, 
that  is,  love  ready  to  give  everything  :  this  is  the  whole  of  the  law  (Luke  6).  The 
words.  Thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven,  do  not  signif}'  that  this  almsgiving  will 
open  heaven  to  him,  but  that,  when  he  shall  have  entered  into  this  abode,  he  will  find 
there,  as  the  result  of  his  sacrifice,  grateful  beings,  whose  love  shall  be  to  him  an  in- 
exhaustible treasure  (see  at  16  :  9).  The  act,  which  is  the  real  condition  of  entering 
heaven,  is  indicated  bj'  the  last  word,  to  wliich  the  whole  converges,  Folloio  me.  The 
mode  of  following  .Tesus  varies  according  to  limes  At  that  time,  in  order  to  be  in- 
wardly attached  to  Him,  it  was  necessary  for  a  man  to  follow  Him  externally,  and 
c.)nsequenlly  to  abandon  his  earthly  position.  At  the  present  day,  when  Jesus  lives 
no  more  in  the  body  here  below,  the  only  condition  is  the  spiritual  one,  but  with  all 
those  moral  conditions  which  flow  from  our  relation  to  Him,  according  to  each  one's 
character  and  place.  The  sorrow  which  this  answer  occasions  the  ytmng  man  is  ex- 
pressed b}'  Mark  in  the  most  dramatic  way  :  He  heaved  a  deej)  sigh,  {nrvyvuna;).  Tlie 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  thus  described  this  scene  :  "  Then  the  rich  man  began  to 
scratch  his  head,  for  that  was  not  to  his  mind.  And  the  Lord  said  to  him  :  How, 
then,  canst  thou  s&y,  I  have  kept  the  law  ;  for  it  is  written  in  the  law.  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  ;  and  lo  !  many  of  thy  breth'^en,  children  of  Abialmm, 
live  iu  the  gutter,  and  die  of  liunger,  while  thy  table  is  loaded  with  good  things,  and 
nothing  is  .sent  out  to  them  ?"*  Such  is  the  wilting  which  some  modern  critics  {eg. 
Baur)  allege  to  be  the  original  of  our  Matthew,  and  tiie  parent  of  our  synoptical 
literature  ! 

*  Quoted  by  Origen,  in  Matt.  19  :  19. 


ciiAi'.    Will.  :  ::i4-oU.  4:13 

2d.  Vers.  24-27.*  T/ic  Conversation  regarding  the  Rich  Man. — It  is  not  the  fact  of 
proprietorship  which  hinders  the  soul  from  taking  its  Uight  to  spiritual  blessings  ;  it 
is  I  lit-  feeliin;  of  secuiity  wliich  it  inspires.  So,  in  Mark,  Jesus  says,  in  c.xplauutiun 
of  His  tirs^t  declaration  :  "  How  hard  is  it  for  (hem  (hat  truxt  in  riches  to  enter  .  .  .  !" 
The  iShemiles  denote  the  impossibility  of  a  tiling  by  the  image  of  a  heavily  laden 
camel  arrivmg  at  a  city  gale  which  is  low  and  narrow,  and  through  which  it  cannot 
pass.  Then,  to  give  this  image  the  i)i(iuant  form  which  the  Oriental  proverb  loves, 
tliis  gate  is  transtoinied  into  the  eye  of  a  needle.  Some  commentators  and  copyists, 
nut  understanding  this  ligurc,  have  changed  Konn'^iOi,  camel,  into  Ka/^uoi  (the  r/  was 
pronounced  /).  n  ^ety  unusual  word,  which  does  not  occur  even  in  tiic  ancient  le.\i 
cographers,  and  which,  it  is  alleged,  sometimes  denotes  ix  ship's  cable.  In  the  re- 
ceived text  {Tpv/ia?.iu'i  i)a(pUh?),  (xKpKhi  is  a  correction  borrowed  from  Mark  and  jMat- 
thew  ;  the  true  reading  in  Luke  is  Sehnrji,  which  also  signifies  7icedle.  Instead  of  the 
word  TpvfiaXia,  the  Alex,  read  -pv-ijiia  (ur  rp?}^.i).  The  first  form  might  come  from 
Mark  ;  but  it  is  more  probable  that  it  is  the  second  which  is  taken  from  Matthew, 
the  Gospel  most  generally  used.     Wc  must  therefore  read  in  Luke,  Tpi>//«/«2?  /ieA(n7/?. 

To  exclude  the  rich  from  salvation  was,  it  seemed,  to  exclude  all  ;  for  if  the  most 
blessed  among  men  can  only  be  saved  with  dillicully,  wliat  will  become  of  the  rest'' 
Such  appears  to  be  the  connection  between  vers.  25  and  20.  De  Wette  joins  them 
in  a  somewhat  different  way  :  "  As  every  one  more  or  less  seeks  riches,  none  there- 
fore can  be  saved."  This  connection  is  less  natural.  Jesus,  according  to  ]Malthew 
and  Mai  k,  at  this  point  turns  on  His  disciples  a  look  full  of  earnestness  (t/^ J/ tt/;as 
avroii,  looking  upon  them) :  "  It  is  but  too  true  ;  but  there  is  a  sphere  in  which  the 
impossible  is  possible,  that  of  the  divine  operation  (-npii  -C)  6fw,  with  God.)"  Thus 
Jesus  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  lifts  the  mind  of  His  hearers  from  human  works,  of 
which  alone  the  young  man  was  thinking,  to  that  divine  work  of  radical  regeneration 
which  proceeds  from  the  One  only  good,  and  of  which  Jesus  is  alone  the  instru- 
ment. Comp.  a  similar  and  equally  rapid  gradation  of  ideas,  John  3  :  2,  5.  Which 
■would  have  been  better  for  this  young  man— to  leave  his  goods  to  become  the  com- 
panijn  in  labor  of  the  St.  Peters  and  St.  Johns,  or  to  keep  those  possessions  so  soon 
to  ba  laid  waste  by  the  Rjman  legions  ? 

3d.  Vers.  28-30. f  The  Conversation  regarding  the  Disciples.— There  had  been  a  day 
in  the  life  of  the  disciples  when  a  similar  alternative  had  been  put  before  them  ;  they 
had  resolved  it  in  a  different  way.  What  was  to  accrue  to  them  from  the  course  which 
they  had  taken  ?  Peter  asks  the  question  innocently,  in  the  name  of  all.  The  form  of 
bis  inquiry  in  Matthew,  Wiat  shall  ice  have  therefore?  contains,  more  expressly  tiiun 
that  of  Luke  and  iMark,  the  idea  of  an  expected  recompense.  In  Matthew,  the  Lord 
enters  at  once  into  Peter's  thought,  and  makes  a  special  promise  to  the  Twelve,  one  of 
the  grandest  which  He  addressed  to  them.  Then,  in  the  parable  of  the  laborers.  He 
warns  them  against  indulging  pride,  on  the  ground  that  they  have  been  the  xir^t  to 
follow  Ilim.     it  is  difficult  fully  to  harmonize  this  parable  with  the  special  promise 

*  Yer.  24.  5*.  B.  L.  4  Mnn.  omit  TvfpilvTvov  yevoiiEvov.  B.  L.,  eLanopevovTat  instead 
oi.  BiaeA^'ain-Tai.  Ver.  2.1.  S.  7  Mnn..  Kci/xi/ov  instead  of  Ka/x7]7.ui>.  ^.  B.  U.  Tpv.udroi 
L.  R.  Tpv7TJiunTo<i,  instead  of  -fw/iti/idS.  ».  B.  D.  L.  8  Mnn.,  3e/nvj]i  instead  of 
paotfJo?.     A.  D.  M.  P.  20  Mnn.  Svr'"^  lipi-^^W'-^,  Vg.,  lUe/eeiv  instead  of  fCTf/fea'. 

f  Ver.  2S.  ii'-  B.  D.  L.  some  ]\Inn.  Iti'i""i"-=,  o<>Fvrf?  i6t<i  instead  of  (iotikuusv  -ravra 
Kai.  Ver.  30.  ».  B.  L.  3  Mnn.,  oS  ovxt  instead  of  oS  ov.  B.  D.  M.  10  Muu.,  USri  in- 
stead of  QTTo'/.aiJT}. 


414  COMMEXTAllY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

which  precedes  it,  without  holding  that  the  proraise  was  conditional,  and  was  not  to 
be  fulfilled,  except  in  so  far  as  they  did  not  al)aud(/U  themselves  to  the  spirit  of  pride 
combated  in  the  parable,  which  savors  of  retinenieut.  As,  therefore,  Luke  places 
this  same  promise  in  a  wholly  different  selling,  23:28-30,  a  context  with  wliich  it 
perfectly  agrees,  it  is  probable  Ihat  Matthew  placed  it  here  through  an  association  of 
ideas  which  admits  of  easy  explanation.  According  to  Luke  and  Matk,  the  promise 
by  which  Jesus  answered  Peter  is  such  as  to  apply  to  all  believers  ;  and  it  behoved 
to  be  so,  if  Jesus  did  not  wish  to  favor  the  feeling  of  self-exaltation  which  breathed 
in  the  question  of  the  apostle.  There  is  even  in  the  form.  There  its  no  man 
tJiat  .  .  .  (Mark  and  Luke),  the  express  intention  to  give  to  this  promise  the 
widest  possible  application.  All  the  relations  of  natural  life  find  their  analogies  in 
the  bonds  formed  by  community  of  faith.  Hence  there  arises  fur  the  believer  a  com- 
pensation for  the  painful  rupture  of  fleshly  ties,  which  Jesus  knew  so  well  by  expe- 
rience (8  :  19-21  ;  comp.  with  8  : 1-6)  ;  and  every  true  believer  can,  like  Him,  speak 
of  fathers  and  mothers,  brethren  iind  children,  who  form  his  newspiiitual  family. 
Luke  and  Mark  speak,  besides,  of  houses;  .Afatlhew,  of  lands.  The  communion  of 
Christian  love  in  reality  procures  for  each  believer  the  enjoyment  of  every  soit  of 
good  belonging  to  his  brethren  ;  yet,  to  prevent  His  disciples  from  supposing  that  it 
is  an  earthly  paradise  to  which  He  is  inviting  them.  He  adds  in  Maik,  with  perse- 
cutions. Matthew  aud  Luke  had  assuredly  no  dogmatic  reason  for  omitting  this  impor- 
tant correction,  if  they  had  known  it.  Luke  likewise  omits  here  the  maxim,  "  Jilany 
that  are  first  shall  be  last,  etc.  .  .  ."  with  which  this  piece  closes  in  Mark,  and 
which  in  Matthew  introduces  the  parable  of  the  laborers. 

The  common  source  of  Ihe  three  Syn.  cannot  be  the  prnto-Mark,  as  Holtz- 
mann  will  have  it,  unless  we  hold  it  to  be  at  their  own  hand  that  Luke  ascribes  to 
this  rich  man  the  title,  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  and  that  Matthew  calls  him  a  young 
man.  As  to  Luke's  Ebionite  tendency,  criticism  is  bound  t"  acknowledge,  with  this 
piece  before  it,  that  if  salvation  l)y  voluntary  poverty  is  really  taught  in  out*  Gospel, 
it  is  not  less  decidedly  so  by  the  other  two  Syn.  that  it  is  a  heresy,  consequently, 
not  of  Luke,  but  of  Jesus — or  rather,  a  sound  exegesis  can  find  no  such  thing  in  the 
doctrines  which  our  three  evangelists  agree  in  putting  in  the  Master's  mouth. 

6.  The  Third  Announcement  of  ihe  Passion:  18  :  31-34.— Vers.  31-34.  Twice 
already  Jesus  had  announced  to  His  disciples  His  approaching  sufferings  (9  :  18,  et 
seq.,  43,  et  seq.) ;  yet,  as  proved  by  the  request  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  (Matt. 
20  :  20  ;  Mark  10  :  35),  their  hopes  constantly  turned  toward  an  earthly  kingdom.  In 
renewing  the  announcement  of  His  Passion,  Jesus  labors  to  abate  the  offence  which 
this  event  will  occasion,  and  even  to  convert  it  into  a  support  for  their  faith,  when  at 
a  later  date  they  shall  compare  this  catastrophe  with  the  sayings  by  which  He  pre- 
pared Ihem  for  it  (John  13:10).  Mark  prefaces  this  third  announcement  by  a 
lemarkable  introduction  (10  :  32).  Jesus  walks  before  them  on  the  road  ;  they  fol- 
low, astonished  and  alarmed.  This  picture  reminds  us  of  the  expression,  Ee  set  His 
face  steadfastly  (Luke  9  :  51),  as  well  as  of  the  sayings  of  the  disciples  and  of  Thomas 
(John  11  :  8,  16).  What  substantial  harmony  under  this  diversity  of  form  !  In 
general,  Luke  does  not  quote  prophecies  ;  he  does  so  here  once  for  all,  and,  as  it 
were,  in  the  mass.  The  dative,  tu  viu,  may  be  made  dependent  on  jeypn/u^eva, 
"  written  for  the  Sou  of  man,"  as  the  sketch  of  His  course  ;  or  TE7.tnf)riaeTaL,  "  shall 
be  accomplished  in  respect  to  the  Son  of  man,"  in  His  person.  The  first  construction 
is  simpler.  The  form  of  the  fut.  passive  used  by  Luke  denotes  passive  abandonment 
to  suffering  more  forcibly  than  the  active  futures  used  by  Matthew  and  Matk.     The 


cHAi'.    .Will,  :  :J1— 13.  415 

kind  of  death  is  not  indicated  in  Luke  and  ]\l!wk  so  positively  as  in  Matthew  (aravpu- 
aai)  ;  neveitbck's-s  llie  details  in  this  thud  auuoiinceniuut  are  more  precise  and  mure 
diiimalic  Ihan  in  the  preceding.  See  at  9  :  45.  On  ver.  34  Kiggenbach  justly 
<»bserves  :  "  Toward  eveiytliiiig  which  is  contraiy  to  natural  desire,  there  is  produced 
in  the  heart  a  blindness  which  uothiug  but  a  miracle  can  heal." 

As  ver.  34  has  no  parallel  in  the  other  two  Syu.,  Hol'zmanu  thinks  that  Luke  makes 
this  reticction  ti  subj-liiute  lor  ihu  account  of  tlie  recjuesl  pretViitd  by  Zebedce's  Kons, 
Winch  is  found  here  in  the  uariativtsof  .Matthew  ami  Maik.  But  does  not  a  perfectly'- 
siiudar  reticction  occur  in  the  sequel  of  tlie  second  iuinuuncement  of  the  Pas.sion 
(D  :  4-5),  vnicie  no  such  intention  is  admissible'/  It  is  dithculi  for  those  who  re>:aid 
Luke's  Gospel  as  systematically  hostile  to  the  Twelve,  lo  explain  the  omi-^.'^ion'of  a 
fact  so  unfavorable  to  two  of  the  leading  apostles.  Volkmar  ("  Die  Evangel."  p. 
501)  has  found  the  solution  :  J.uke  wishes  to  avoid  offending  the  Judeo-Christian 
party,  which  he  desires  lo  gain  over  to  Pauliiiism  !  So,  artful  i^n  what  he  says,  more 
artful  in  his  silence— such  is  Luke  in  the  estimate  of  this  school  of  crilicii?m  ! 

7.  The  Healing  of  Bartimeus :  18:35-43. — John's  very  exact  narrative  serves 
to  complete  the  synoptical  account.  The  soiourn  of  Jesus  in  Perca  was  inler- 
lunted  by  the  call  which  led  Jesus  to  Bethany  to  the  help  of  Lazarus  (John  11). 
Thence  He  proceeds  to  Ephraim,  on  the  Saniarilan  side,  wheio  He  remained  in  retire- 
ment with  His  disciples  (John  11  :  54).  It  was  doubtless  at  this  time  that  the  third 
announcement  of  His  Passion  took  place.  On  the  approach  of  the  feast  of  Passover, 
He  went  down  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  rejoining  at  Jericho  the  Galilean  caravans 
which  arrived  by  way  of  Perea.  He  had  resolved  this  lime  lo  enter  Jerusalem  with 
the  greatest  publicity,  and  to  present  Himself  to  the  people  and  to  the  Sanhediim  in 
Ihe  character  of  a  king.  It  was  His  hour,  the  hour  of  His  manifestation,  expected 
long  ago  by  Mary  (John  3  :  4),  and  which  His  brethren  (John  7  :  C-8)  had  thought  to 
precipitate. 

Vers.  35-43.*  Luke  speaks  of  a  blind  man  sitting  by  the  wayside,  whom  Jesus 
cured  as  He  came  nigh  to  Jericho  ;  Mark  gives  this  man's  name,  Bartimeus ;  accord- 
ing to  his  account,  it  Tvas  as  Jesus  went  out  of  Jericho  that  He  healed  him  ;  finally, 
Matthew  speaks  of  ttoo  blind  men,  who  were  healed  as  Jesus  departed  from  the  city. 
The  ihree  accounts  harmonize,  as  in  so  many  cases,  onlj'^  in  the  words  of  the  dia- 
logue ;  the  tenor  of  the  sufferer's  prayer  and  of  the  reply  of  Jesus  is  almost  identical 
in  the  three  (ver.  38  and  parallel).  Of  those  three  narratives,  that  of  Mark  is  undoubt- 
edly the  most  exact  and  picturesijue  ;  and  in  the  case  of  a  real  difference,  it  is  to  this 
evangelist  that  we  must  give  the  preference.  It  has  been  observed,  however  (Andrene 
Betceis  des  Glauhens,  July  and  August,  1870),  that  Josephus  and  Eusebius  dislin- 
gui.shed  between  the  old  and  the  new  Jericho,  and  that  the  two  blind  men  might  have 
l)een  found,  the  one  as  they  went  out  of  the  one  cit3^  the  other  at  the  entrance  of  the 
other.  Or,  indeed,  it  is  not  impossible  that  two  cures  took  place  on  that  day,  the  one 
on  the  occasion  of  their  entrance  into  the  citj',  the  other  on  their  leaving  it,  which 
Matthew  has  combined  ;  Luke  applying  lo  the  one,  following  a  tradition  slightly 
altered,  the  special  details  which  had  ciiaractcrized  the  other.  This  double  modifica- 
tion might  have  been  the  more  easily  introduced  into  the  oral  narrative,  if  Jesus, 
coming  from  Ephraim  lo  Jericho,  entered  the  city,  as  is  very  probable,  by  the  same 
road  and  by  the  same  gate  by  which  lie  left  it  lo  go  to  Jerusalem.     If  there  were 

*  Ver.  35.  5*.  B.  D.  L. ,  r-niTuv  instead  of  TKoaairuv.  Ver.  38.  A.  E.  K.  n.  10 
Mnn.  omit  Ij/tov.  Ver.  3',).  B.  D.  L.  P.  X.  s  .me  Mnn.,  ciyricri  instead  of  aiuTTTjae. 
Ver.  41.  i<.  B.  D.  L.  X.  omit  '/.eyuv  before  rt. 


41G  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

two  blind  men,  they  might  then  have  been  healed  almost  on  the  same  spot.  The 
name  Bartimeus  {son  of  2'imeuti),  which  Miiik  has  preserved,  comes  either  from  the 
Greeli  name  Ti/xatoi,  the  honorable,  or  from  the  Aramaic,  name,  mmia,  blind;  blind, 
son  of  the  blind  (Hilzig,  Keim).  Mark  adds  :  the  blind  inan.  The  term  suggests  the 
name  by  which  he  was  known  in  the  place. 

The  address,  son  of  David,  is  a  form  of  undisguised  Messianic  worship.  This 
utterance  would  suffice  to  show  the  state  of  men's  minds  ut  thut  time.  The  rebuke 
addressed  to  him  by  the  members  of  the  company  (ver.  39)  bas  no  bearing  wliatever 
on  the  use  of  this  title.  It  seems  to  them  much  rather  that  there  is  presumption  c!i 
the  part  of  a  beggar  in  thus  stopping  the  progress  of  so  exulted  a  personage.  The 
reading  of  the  T.  R,  ciuTi'inri,  is  probably  taken  from  the  parallels.  We  must  read, 
with  the  Al(^x.  :  trt/f/a?;  (a  term  more  rarely  used).  Nothing  could  be  more  natural 
than  the  sadden  change  which  is  effected  in  tlie  conduct  of  the  multitude,  as  soon  as 
they  observe  the  favorable  disposition  of  Jesus  ;  they  form  so  many  inimitable  char- 
acteristics preserved  by  Mark  only.  With  a  majesty  truly  royal,  Jesus  seems  to 
open  up  to  the  beggar  the  treasures  of  divine  jjower  :  "  What  wilt  thou  that  I  shall 
do  unto  thee  ?"'  and  to  give  him,  if  we  may  so  speak,  carte  blanche  (5  :  41). 

In  replying  to  the  blind  man's  prayer,  ver.  42,  He  says,  thy  faith,  not,  my  power, 
to  impress  on  him  the  value  of  that  disposition,  in  view  of  the  still  more  important 
spiritual  miracle  which  remains  to  be  wrought  in  him,  and,  hath  saved  thee,  not,  hath 
made  thee  whole  ;  although  liis  life  was  in  no  danger,  to  show  him  that  in  this  cure 
there  lies  the  beginning  of  his  salvation,  if  he  will  keep  up  the  bond  of  faith  between 
him  r.nd  the  Saviour's  person.  Jesus  allows  Bartimeus  to  give  full  scope  to  his  grati- 
tude, and  the  crowd  to  express  aloud  their  admiraiion  aud  joy.  The  time  for  cau- 
tious measures  is  past.  Those  feelings  to  which  the  multitude  give  themselves  up  are 
the  broatli  preceding  that  anticipation  of  Pentecost  which  is  called  Palm  Day. 
tolJ-leiv  relates  to  the  power,  alveiv  to  the  goodness  of  God  (3  ;  20). 


The  unclenir.blo  superiority  of  IVlark's  narrative  obliges  Bleek  to  give  up  here,  at 
least  in  pan,  his  untenable  position  of  regarding  Mark  as  the  compiler  of  the  two 
others,  lie  ucknowiedges,  that  even  while  using  the  narrative  of  the  other  two,  he 
mucL  have  lu.d  ia  this  case  a  separate  and  independent  source.  So  far  well  :  but  is  it 
possible  that  this  source  absolutely  contained  nothing  more  than  this  one  narrative? 

lloltzmann,  on  the  other  hand,  who  regards  the  proto-Mark  as  the  origin  of  the 
three  Syn.,  finds  it  no  less  impossible  to  explain  how  Matthew  and  Luke  could  so 
completely  tilter  the  hi-.torical  side  of  the  ar-count  (the  one  :  two  blind  men  instead 
of  ono  ;  the  other  :  the  healing  l>efore  entering  Jericho  rather  than  after,  etc.),  aud 
to  tpoil  t.t  "svill  its  dramatic  beauty,  so  well  reproduced  by  Mark.  And  what  signifies 
the  cxpl:!nation  given  by  Holtzinann  of  Luke's  transposition  of  the  miracle,  and 
which  is  borrowed  from  Bleek  :  that  Luke  fias  been  led  by  the  succeeding  history  of 
Zaccheus  to  place  the  healing  before  the  entrance  into  Jericho  ! 

Volkmar,  who  derives  Luke  from  Maik,  and  Matthew  from  the  two  combined, 
alleges  that  Llark  intended  the  blind  man  to  be  the  type  of  the  Gentiles  who  seek  the 
Saviour  (hence  the  namo  Bartimeus  ;  Tiraeus  comes,  according  to  him,  from  Thima, 
the  unclean)  ;  and  the  company  who  followed  Him,  and  who  wish  to  impose  silence 
on  the  man,  to  be  types  of  the  Jud'.o  Cliristians,  who  denied  to  the  Gentiles  access  to 
the  Messli-h  of  Israel.  I^  Luke  omits  the  most  picturesque  details,  it  is  because  of 
liis  prosaic  character.  If  he  omits  the  name  Bartimeus,  it  is  because  he  is  offended 
at  finding:  the  Gentiles  designated  as  impure  beings.  If  he  places  the  miracle  before 
entering  Jericho,  it  is  because  he  distinguishes  the  healing  of  the  man  from  that  of 
his  Paganism,  which  shall  be  tiiii<^ed  after,  and  that  in  "the  salvation  granted  to 


cu.vi'.    Xi\.  :  I-IO.  417 

Zaccheus.*  Zacdieus,  the  pure,  is  the  counterpart  of  Timeus,  tJie  unclean  ("Die 
Evanjifl."  pp.  r>0;2-")0r)).  Of  its  kind  this  is  thu  climax  !  iSiuh  is  the  game  of  lilde 
anil  SI  ck  winch  Iho  evangelists  ])la_ve(l  with  ihe  C'hurclics  on  liie  theme  of  the  persou 
of  Jesus  !     Afu r  this  wo  uetd  give  no  other  iJiools  of  this  author's  feagacit}'. 

y.  Jesus  at  (he  House  of  Zaccheus :  19  : 1-10.— Vers.  1-lO.f  In  I^Ialthew  and  :Maik 
the  account  of  Jesus'  entiy  into  Jerusalem  inunedialely  follows  tiiat  of  the  healioi^  of 
Bartimeus.  Theie  is  a  blank  left  by  tlieui,  for  Jl'Sus  stayed  at  Bethany,  and  there 
passed  at  least  one  night  (John  12  :  1,  ct  seq.).  This  blank,  according  to  Luke,  is  still 
more  considerable.  For  before  aniving  at  Bethany,  Jesus  slopped  at  Jericho,  and 
there  passed  the  night  (vcr.  5).  Luke's  souice  is  original,  and  independent  of  the 
other  two  Syu.  It  was  Aramaic,  as  is  proved  by  the  heaping  up  of  Kui,  the  para- 
tactic  form,  as  well  as  the  expression  ovdna-c  Ku/.uv/iei'oi,  veis.  1,  2.  Comp.  1  :  01. 
The  name  Zaccheus,  from  -,^1,  to  be  pure,  proves  the  Jewish  origin  of  the  man. 
There  must  have  been  at  Jericho  one  of  the  princii)al  custom-houses,  both  on  account 
of  the  exportation  of  the  bahu  whieh  grew  in  that  oasis,  and  which  was  sold  in  all 
countries  of  the  world,  and  on  account  of  the  considerable  traffic  which  took  place 
on  this  road,  by  which  lay  the  route  from  Perea  to  Judca  and  Egypt.  Zaccheus 
was  at  the  head  of  the  office.  The  person  of  Jesus  attracted  his  peculiar  interest,  no 
doubt  because  he  had  heard  tell  of  the  benevolence  shown  by  this  prophet  to  people 
of  his  class.  Most  certainly'-  Ws  kari  (ver.  3)  does  not  signify  :  tchich.  of  the  members 
of  the  company  He  was  (Bleek),  but  :  what  was  His  appearance.  After  having  accom- 
panied the  crowd  for  a  little,  without  gaining  his  end,  he  outruns  it. 

The  sycamore  is  a  tree  with  low  horizontal  branches,  and  cunsequcntly  of  easy 
ascent.  'E/cea?/?,  for  :  6l  eKdvrji  othi)  (ver.  10).  Was  the  attention  of  Jesus  called 
to  liis  presence  in  the  tree  by  the  looks  which  the  people  directed  Toward  him  'I 
Did  He,  at  the  same  time,  hear  His  name  pronounced  in  the  crowd  ?  In  this  case,  it 
is  unnecessary  to  regard  the  address  ot  Jesus  as  the  effect  of  supernatural  knowl  dge. 
There  is  something  of  pleasantness,  and  even  of  sprighlliuess,  m  the  form  :  "  Make 
haste  and  come  down  ;  for  to-day  I  must  abide  at  thy  house."  The  word  must  indi- 
cates that  Jesus  lias  recognized  in  him,  on  account  of  this  eager  desire  which  he  haj 
to  sec  him,  the  host  whom  His  Fatiier  has  chosen  for  Him  at  Jericho.  Here  there  is 
a  lost  sheep  to  be  found.  It  is  the  same  unwearied  conviction  of  His  mission  as  in 
meeting  with  the  Samaritan  Avoman.  What  absolute  consecration  to  the  divine  work  ! 
And  what  sovereign  independence  of  human  opinion  !  In  the  multitude,  which  is 
yet  swayed  by  pharisaic  prejudices,  there  is  general  discontent.  There  is  nothing  to 
show  that  the  disciples  ate  also  included  under  the  words  :  "  They  all  murmured." 
The  expression  (jraOetS  <5f,  "but  Zaccheus  standing"  (before  the  Lord,  ver.  8).  im- 
medialel}--  connects  the  following  words  of  the  publican  with  those  popular  murmurs. 

*  It  misht  be  thought  that  we  are  jesting.  Here  are  the  words  :  "  The  blind 
mendicautOf  :Maik  is  cleft  by  Luke  into  two  halves  :  («)  The  blind  man  as  such, 
whom  he  places  before  the  entrance  of  Jericho  ;  {h)  the  Pagan  element  in  the  blind 
man.  which  is  placed  after  leaving  Jericho  (in  Zacciieus). " 

t  Ver.  2.  D.  G.  7  ]Mnu.  Syr.  ^Itf'''"i"°,  Vg.  omit  Ku/ov/jeioi.  ik.  L.  Syi"".  omit 
ovToi  between  nat  and  7]i>.  B  K.  n.  some  "Mnn.  It''''i.  Vg.  omit  i/p.  Ver.  4.  The 
Mss.  are  divided  between  7r/jof5prt/iwi/(T.  U.  and  Alex.)  and  Tr^oTiVn^wp  (Bvz  and  25 
Mnn.).  !!*.  B.  L.  add  etr  to  before  eurrponOev.  Instead  of  <5i'  eKavr]?,  which  T.  K.  reads 
with  A.  and  2  Mnn.  only,  all  the  others,  eKeivrj';.  Ver.  o.  i^.  B.  L.  omit  the  words 
enhv  avTnv  Kai.  Ver.  8.  G.  K.  M.  11.  several  Man.,  Kvpiov  instead  of  Ir/'^ovv.  Ver.  9. 
**  •  L.  R.  omit   eanv  after  AfSpaafM. 


418  COMMENTAllY    OX    tJT.   LUKE. 

2  ra(?£/s  denotes  a  firm  and  dignified  attitude,  such  as  suits  a  man  wliose  honor  is 
attacked.  "  He  whom  Thou  hast  thought  good  to  choose  as  Thy  host,  is  not,  as  is 
alleged,  a  being  unworthy  of  Tliy  choice."  Did  Zaccheus  pronounce  the  words  of 
ver.  8  at  the  time  when  Jesus  had  just  come  under  his  roof  ?  This  is  what  we  sliould 
be  led  to  suppose  at  the  first  glance  by  the  words  •  hut  he  stood;  nevertheless,  this 
movement  on  the  part  of  Zaccheus  would  appear  a  little  hasty,  and  the  answer  of 
Jesus  :  Salvation  is  come  (ver.  9),  proves  that  He  had  already  sojourned  for  a  time 
with  His  host.  Was  it,  then,  at  the  moment  when  Jesus  was  resuming  His  jouruty 
(Schleiermacher,  Olshauseu)  ?  Vers.  11  aud  28  may  support  this  supposition.  But 
the  word  today  (ver.  9),  which  recalls  the  to-day  of  ver.  5,  places  this  dialogue  on 
the  very  day  of  His  arrival.  The  most  suitable  time  appears  to  be  that  of  the  even- 
ing meal,  while  Jesus  converses  peacefully  with  His  host  and  the  numerous  guests. 
Unless  the  terms  of  vers.  11  and  28  are  immoderately  pressed,  they  are  nut  opposed 
to  this  view. 

Most  modern  interpreters  take  the  words  of  Zaccheus  as  a  vow  inspired  by  his 
gratitude  for  the  grace  wliich  he  has  just  experienced,  'hhv,  behold,  is  taken  to  indi- 
cate a  sudden  resolution  :  "  Take  note  of  this  resolution  :  From  this  moment  I  give 
.  and  I  pledge  myself  to  restore  ..."  But  if  the  pres.  1  give  mny  ctr- 
taiuly  apply  to  a  gift  whicli  Zaccheus  makes  at  the  instant  once  for  all,  the  pres.  1 
restore  fourfold  seems  rather  to  designate  a  rule  of  conduct  already  admitted  and  long 
piactised  by  him.  It  is  unnatural  to  apply  it  to  a  measure  which  would  relate  only 
to  some  special  cases  of  injustice  to  be  repaired  in  the  future.  'Uoii,  behold,  is  in 
keeping  with  the  unexpected  revelation,  so  far  as  the  public  are  concerned,  in  this 
rule  of  Zaccheus,  till  then  unknown  by  all,  and  Avhich  he  now  reveals,  only  to  show 
the  injustice  of  those  murmurs  with  which  the  course  of  Jesus  is  met.  "  Thou  hast 
not  brought  contempt  on  Thyself  by  acceptiag  me  as  Thy  host,  publican  though  I 
am;  and  it  is  no  ill-gotten  gain  with  which  I  entertain  Thee."  In  this  sense,  the 
araSEiS  de,  but  he  Stood,  is  fully  intelligible.  By  the  half  of  his  goods,  Zaccheus,  of 
course,  understands  the  half  of  his  yearly  income.  In  the  case  of  a  wrong  done  to  a 
nei"-hbor,  the  law  exacted,  when  restitution  was  voluntary,  a  fifth  over  and  above 
the  sum  taken  away  (Num.  5  :  6,  7).  Zaccheus  went  vastly  further.  Perhaps  Ihe 
restitution  which  he  imposed  on  himself  was  that  forcibly  exacted  from  the  detectnl 
thief.  In  a  profession  like  his,  it  was  easy  to  commit  involuntary  injustices.  Be- 
sides, Zaccheus  had  under  his  authority  many  employes  for  whom  he  could  not 
answer. 

Jesus  accepts  this  apology  of  Zaccheus,  which  indeed  has  its  worth  in  reply  to  the 
murmurs  of  the  crowd  ;  and  without  allowing  the  least  meritorious  value  to  those 
restitutions  and  those  extraordinary  almsgivings.  He  declares  that  Zaccheus  is  the 
object  of  divine  grace  as  much  as  those  can  be  who  accuse  him.  His  entrance  into 
his  house  has  brought  salvation  thither.  Notwithstanding  the  words,  "Jesus  said 
unto  him  .  .  ."  the  words  following  are  addressed  not  to  Zaccheus,  but  to  the 
entire  assembly'.  The  Trpdi  airuv,  unto  him,  therefore  signifies  :  with  His  eyes  turned 
irpon  him  as  the  subject  of  His  answer  ;  comp.  7  :  44.  Jesus  is  the  living  salvati.jn. 
Received  as  He  was  into  the  house,  He  brought  into  it  by  His  very  presence  this 
heavenly  blessing.  KaOoTi,  agreeably  to  the  fact  that  (for  so  much  as),  indicates  the 
reason  why  Jesus  can  assert  that  Zaccheus  is  saved  this  day.  But  is  this  reason  the 
fact  that  Zaccheus  is  a  descendant  of  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh,  and  has  pre- 
served this  characteristic  as  much  as  any  other  Jew,  notwithstanding  his  Rabbinical 


CHAP.   XIX.  :  11-27.  419 

excommunication  ?  No  ;  Josiis  could  not  make  Uie  possibility  of  salvation  dependent 
on  the  naked  characteristic  of  being  u  member  of  the  Israelitish  nation.  Tliis  idea 
■would  be  iu  conlrudiclion  to  His  whole  teaching,  and  to  the  very  saying  which  con- 
cludes this  verse.  The  term,  son  of  Abraham ,  must  therefore  be  taken  in  its  spiritual 
sense  :  "  Zacchcus  is  restored  to  this  character  which  he  had  lost  by  his  c.vcomniuni- 
cation.  He  possess(  s  it  iu  a  still  higher  sense  than  that  in  Avhich  he  had  lost  it." 
Ter.  10.  Loxt,  so  far  as  a  son  of  Abraham  according  to  tlic  llesh  ;  hni  found  (lie,  the 
same  one,  Kat  uvto',),  as  a  son  of  Abraham  according  to  the  spirit.  Thus  the  maxim 
of  ver  10  readily  connects  itself  with  ver.  9. 

According  to  Ililgenfeld  (p.  20G),  this  piece  is  not  in  the  least  Pauline  ;  it  belongs 
to  the  aucienl  Ebionile  source.  Accoiding  to  Iloltzmann,  on  tlie  cuutitiry  (p.  2o4),  it 
is  entirely  Luke's.  It  may  be  seen  how  critics  agree  with  one  another  on  questions 
of  this  sort  1  As  concerns  ourselves,  we  have  established  an  Aramaic  source.  On 
the  other  liaud,  we  are  at  one  with  Iloltzmann  in  acknowledging  the  traces  of  Luke's 
style  {KaOoTi,  ver.  9  ;  ?/?.iKia,  ver.  3  ;  eKt-iiTjS,  ver.  4  ;  (hayoYyvi^tiv,  ver.  ?).  Hence  wc 
conclude  that  Luke  himself  translated  into  Greek  this  account,  which  is  taken  from 
an  Aramaic  document. 

9.  T/ie  Parable  of  the  Pounds :  19  :  11-37.— Yer.  11.  The  Introduction.— ^^q  have 
already  observed  iu  the  multitudes  (14  :  25,  18  :  38,  19  :  1-3),  and  even  in  the  dis- 
ciples (18  :  31  ;  comp.  with  Matt.  20  :  20,  et  stq.),  the  traces  of  an  excited  state.  Ver. 
11  shows  that  it  went  on  increasing  as  they  approached  Jerusalem.  The  profound 
cahnncss  and  self-possession  of  Jtsus  contrasts  with  the  agitation  which  is  produced 
around  Him.  The  words  ukovovtuv  avTdv,  "  as  they  heard  these  things,"  and  nponOtli 
elTre,  "  He  added,  and  spake,"  establish  a  close  relation  between  the  parable  of  the 
pounds  and  the  preceding  conversation.  But  we  need  not  conclude  therefrom  that 
this  x'arable  was  uttered  as  a  continuation  of  the  conversation.  It  may,  indeed,  have 
been  so  mcrel}'  in  respect  of  time  (ver.  28).  The  relation  indicated  by  the  introduc- 
tion is  purel^^  moral  :  the  so  strilcing  coritrast  between  the  conduct  of  Jesus  toward 
Zaccheus,  and  the  generally  received  ideas,  was  such  that  every  one  felt  that  a  deci- 
sive crisis  was  near.  The  new  was  on  the  eve  of  appearing  ;  and  this  imminent  revo- 
lution naturall}''  presented  itself  to  the  imagination  of  all  in  the  form  in  which  it  had 
always  been  described  to  them.  The  word  -napaxf-nifMa,  immedlaltly,  stands  first  in  the 
proposition,  because  it  expresses  the  thought  against  which  the  parable  following  is 
directed.  The  verb,  avacpaiveaOai,  to  appear,  answers  well  to  the  great  spectacle  for 
"which  they  were  looking.  That  Luke  himself  deduced  this  introduction  from  the 
contents  of  the  parable,  as  TV'eizsiicker  supposes,  is  not  impossible.  But  up  to  tliis 
point  we  have  too  often  recognized  the  historical  value  of  those  short  introductions, 
not  to  admit  that  Luke's  source,  from  which  he  took  the  parable,  contained  some 
indication  of  the  circumstances  which  had  called  it  forth. 

Vers.  12-14.*  The  Probation. — A  man  of  noble  birth  goes  to  ask  from  the  sovereign 
of  the  country  which  he  inhabits  the  government  of  his  province.  Before  undertak- 
ing this  journey,  which  must  be  a  long  one — for  the  sovereign  dwells  in  a  distant 
country — this  man,  concerned  about  the  future  administration  of  the  slate  after  his 
return,  puts  to  the  proof  the  servants  who  have  till  now  formed  his  own  household, 
and  whom  he  proposes  afterward  to  make  his  oiBcers.  For  that  purpose  he  con- 
fides to  each  of  them  a  sum  of  money,  to  be  turned  to  account  in  his  absence.  Hereby 
he  will  be  able  to  estimate  their  fldLlity  and  capability,  and  to  assign  them  in  the  new 

*  Ver.  13.  8  Mjj.  20  Mun.  Or.  read  ev  u  instead  of  tus. 


420  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

State  of  things  a  place  proportioned  to  the  qualities  of  wliich  they  shall  have  given 
proof.  Meanwhile  the  future  sul)ject.s  protest  before  the  sovereign  against  the  eleva- 
tion of  their  fellow-citizen.  Some  features  in  tliis  picture  seem  borrowed  from  the 
political  situation  of  the  Holy  Land.  Josephus  relates  that  on  the  death  of  Herod  the 
Great,  Archelaus,  his  son,  wbom  he  had  appointed  his  heir,  repaired  to  Rome  to 
request  that  Augustus  would  invest  him  in  his  father's  dominions,  hut  that  the  Jews, 
wearied  of  this  dynasty  of  adventurers,  begged  the  emperor  rather  to  convert  their 
country  into  a  Roman  province.  This  case  might  the  more  readily  occur  to  the  mind 
of  Jesus,  as  at  that  very  Jericho  where  He  was  speaking  there  stood  the  magnificent 
palace  which  this  Archelaus  had  huilt.  The  Avord  evyeviji,  of  noble  birth,  evidently 
refers  to  the  superhuman  nature  of  Jesus.  Ma«:puv  is  an  adverb,  as  at  15  :  13.  This 
far  distance  is  the  emblem  of  the  long  interval  which,  in  the  view  of  Jesus,  was  to 
separate  His  departure  from  His  return. 

The  expression,  to  receive  a  kingdom,  includes  the  installation  of  Jesus  in  His 
heavenly  power,  as  well  as  the  preparation  of  His  Messianic  kingdom  here  below 
by  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  His  work  in  the  Church.  A  miiia,  among  the 
Hebrews,  was  worth  about  £6  sterling.*  It  is  not,  as  in  Matt.  25  :  14,  all  /i is  goods, 
which  the  master  distributes  ;  the  sum,  too,  is  much  less  considerable  ;  the  talents  of 
which  Matthew  speaks  are  each  worth  about  £400.  The  idea  is  therefore  different. 
In  Luke,  the  money  intrusted  is  simply  a  means  of  testing.  In  ]Matthew,  the  matter 
in  question  fs  the  aiiministration  of  the  owner's  fortune.  The  sums  intrusted,  being 
in  Luke  the  same  for  all  the  servants,  represent  not  gifts  {xapla/LtaTn),  which  are  very 
various,  but  the  grace  of  salvation  common  to  all  believers  (pardon  and  the  Holy 
Spirit).  The  position  of  every  believer  in  the  future  kingdom  depends  on  the  use 
which  he  makes  of  that  giace  here  below.  It  is  surprising  to  hear  Jesus  call  this 
salvation  an  ehlxcnTov.  a  very  little  (ver.  17).  "What  an  idea  of  future  glory  is  given  to 
us  by  this  saying  !  The  Alex,  reading,  h  u,  ver,  13,  assumes  that  Epxo/^ai  has  ihe 
meaning  of  travelling;  while  with  euS  it  would  siguify  to  arrive.  The  first  reading 
implies  that  the  lime  during  which  the  absence  of  Jesus  lasts  is  a  constant  returning, 
which  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  biblical  view.  "  I  say  unto  you,  that  from 
f/m  <me  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  silting  on  the  throne  .  .  .  and  coming  in  tlte 
clouds  of  heaven,"  Matt.  26  :  64.  The  ascension  is  the  first  step  in  His  return  here 
below.  Ver.  14  describes  the  resistance  of  the  Jews  to  the  Messianic  sovereignty  of 
Jesus,  and  that  during  all  the  time  which  separates  His  first  from  His  second  coming. 

Vers.  15-19. f  The  Faithful  Servants. — From  ver.  15  onward  Jesus  depicts  what 
will  happen  at  the  Parousia.  Every  servant  will  share  in  the  power  of  his  master, 
ni)W  becrme  king,  in  a  degree  proportioned  to  his  activity  during  the  time  of  his  pro- 
bation (tiie  reign  of  grace).  While  the  means  of  action  had  been  the  same,  the 
results  differ  ;  the  amount  of  power  committed  to  each  will  therefore  also  differ  in 
the  same  proportion.  It  is  entirely  otherwise  in  Matthew.  The  sums  committed 
were  different  ;  the  results  are  equal  in  so  far  as  they  are  proportioned  to  the  sums 
received  ;  there  is  therefore  here  equality  of  faitiifulness  and  equal  testimony  of  satis- 
faction. Everything  in  Matthew's  representation  turns  on  the  personal  relation  of 
the  servants  to  their  master,  whose  fortune  (ver.  14,  Ms  goods)  they  are  commissioned 

*  Keil,  "  Handb.  der  Bibl.  Archaologie,"  vol.  ii.  p.  144. 

f  Ver.  15.  ii.  R.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Or.,  f5ff5(j/.f/  instead  of  ei^ukev.  \k.  B.  D.  L. 
gyi-cur  Qj.^  jj  f5(^7rpay//or£t;<7arro  instead  of  TiQ  tl  die-pay/na-evaaro,  Ver.  17.  B.  D.  3 
Man.  Or.,  tvye  instead  of  ev. 


ciiAi'.  XIX.  :  :2()-;3r.  421 

to  administer  Hud  incrcasi'.  and  who  rcioices  oqiuilly  in  the  active  fidditj-  of  all  ; 
while  in  Jjuke  the  one  point  in  question  is  to  settle  the  i)osilion  of  the  servants  in  llio 
cc;)n()my  of  glory  which  is  opening,  and  couseqnently  to  determine  the  proportion  of 
faithfnlness  displayed  during  the  time  of  labor  and  probation  which  has  just  closed. 
The  ttu,  the  five  cities  (ver.s.  17  and  19),  lepresent  moral  beings  in  a  lower  state  of 
development,  but  whom  the  glorilied  faithful  are  commissioned  to  raise  to  their  divine 
destination. 

Vers.  20-27.*  Of  the  other  seven  servants  there  is  no  mention;  the}'  fall  either 
into  the  categorj'  of  the  preceding,  or  into  that  of  the  following.  The  ground  on 
Avhich  the  latter  explains  his  inactivity  is  not  a  mere  pretext.  His  language  is 
too  plain-spoken  not  to  be  sincere.  lie  is  a  believer  who  has  not  found  the  slate  of 
grace  offered  by  Je.sus  so  brilliant  as  he  hoped — a  legal  Christian,  who  has  not  tasted 
grace,  and  knows  nothing  of  the  gospel  but  its  severe  molality.  It  seems  to  him 
that  the  Lord  gives  very  little  to  exact  so  much.  With  such  a  feeling,  the  least  pos- 
sible only  will  be  done.  God  should  be  satisfied  with  us  if  we  abstain  from  domg  ill, 
from  squandering  our  talent.  Such  would  have  been  the  language  of  a  Judas  dis- 
satisfied with  the  poverty  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom.  In  Matthew,  the  unfaithful 
servant  isolfended  not  at  the  insufKciency  of  the  master's  gifts  in  general,  but  at  the 
inferiority  of  those  given  to  himself,  in  comparison  with  those  of  his  associates. 
This  is  a  Judas  embittered  at  the  sight  of  the  higher  position  assigned  to  Peter  or 
John. 

The  master's  answer  {ver.  22)  is  an  argumentuvi  ad  liominem  :  Tlie  more  thou 
knowest  that  I  am  austere,  the  more  shouldest  thou  have  endeavored  to  satisfy  me  ! 
The  Christian  who  lacks  the  sweet  experience  of  grace  (mght  to  be  the  most  anxious 
of  laborers.  The  fear  of  doing  ill  is  no  reason  for  doing  nothing,  especially  when 
there  are  means  of  action,  the  use  of  which  covers  our  entire  responsibility.  "What 
does  Jesus  mean  by  the  hanker?  Could  it  be  those  Christian  associations  to  which 
every  believer  may  intrust  the  resources  which  he  cannot  use  himself  ?  It  seems  to 
us  that  Jesus  by  this  image  would  rather  represent  the  divine  omnipotence  of  which 
we  may  avail  ourselves  by  prayer,  without  thereby  exposing  the  cause  of  Christ  to  any 
risk.  Of  him  who  has  not  worked  the  Lord  will  ask,  Hast  thou  at  least  prayed  ? 
The  dispensation  of  glory  clianges  in  the  case  of  such  a  servant  into  an  eternity  of 
loss  and  shame.  The  holy  works  which  he  might  have  wrought  here  below,  along 
with  the  powers  by  which  he  might  have  accomplished  them,  are  committed  to  the 
servant  who  has  shown  himself  the  most  active.  This  or  that  Pagan  population,  for 
example,  which  might  have  been  evangelized  by  the  young  Christian  who  remained 
on  the  earth  the  slave  of  selfish  ease,  shall  be  committed  in  the  future  dispensation  to 
the  devoted  missionary  who  has  used  his  powers  here  below  in  the  service  of  Jesus. 
At  ver.  2G,  the  same  form  of  address  as  at  12  :  41,  43.  The  Lord  continues  as  if  no 
ol)servation  had  been  interposed,  replying  all  the  while,  nevertheless,  to  the  objection 
which  has  been  started.  There  is  a  law,  in  virtue  of  which  every  grace  actively 
ai)propriiited  increases  our  rece()tivit}'  for  higher  graces,  while  all  grace  rejected  di- 
minishes our  aptitude  for  receiving  new  graces.  From  this  law  of  moral  life  it  follows, 

*  Ver.  20.  i*^  B.  D.  L.  Pv.  2  Mnn.,  o  erei,o?  instead  of  fxfpo?,  Ver  22.  9  Mjj. 
omit  fU  after  /.eyei.  Ver.  23.  All  the  Mjj.  except  K.  omit  rr/i'  before  -fyanti^av.  Ver. 
2(].  ii.  B.  L.  7  Mnn.  omit  ynp  aftir  /f}(j.  !*.  B.  L.  7  Mnh.  omit  mt'  avrow  after 
apdrjceTa..  Ver.  27.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  FKFimvS  {T.  P.,  Byz.)  and  roirovS 
iAi\rx.\      U.  J}.  F.  L.  R.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  add  amnvS  after  KaTaoctmia-e. 


422  COMMENTAKY    OJf    ST.  LUKE. 

tlicit  gradually  all  graces  taiist  be  concentrated  in  faithful  workers,  and  be  withdrawn 
from  negligent  servants.  Chap.  8  :  18,  Jesus  said,  IJiat  wlueh  lie  seemeth  to  liave ; 
here  he  says,  That  he  hath.  The  two  expressions  are  true.  We  have  a  grace  which 
is  bestowed  on  us  ;  but  if  we  do  not  assimilate  it  actively,  we  do  not  really  possess 
it  ;  we  imagine  we  have  it. 

Ver.  27  (comp.  ver.  14)  represents  the  Messiah's  reckoning  with  the  Jewish  people, 
as  veis.  15--3G  lepresent  His  reckoning  wilh  the  Church.  TVaiiv,  only :  "  xifter  judg- 
ing the  servants,  there  remains  only  one  thing."  This  punishment  of  the  Jews  in- 
cludes, along  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  state  of  rejection  in  which  they 
are  plunged  till  the  Lord's  return. 

The  ruling  idea  of  this  parable  in  Luke  is  therefore  that  of  a  time  of  probation 
between  the  departure  and  the  return  of  the  Lord,  necessary  to  prepare  the  sentence 
which  shall  tix  the  position  of  every  one  in  the  state  of  things  following  the  Parousia. 
Hence  follows  the  impossibility  of  that  immediate  appearing  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
which  lilled  the  minds  of  the  crowd  now  accompanying  Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  Luke's 
parable  thus  forms,  as  Hollzmann  acknowledges,  a  complete  whole  ;  and  whatever 
the  same  learned  critic  may  say,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  introduction,  ver.  11, 
Indicates  its  true  beating— a  fact  confirming  the  idea  that  this  introduction  belonged 
to  Luke's  sources,  and  proceeded  from  accurate  tradition. 

Tiie  relation  between  this  parable  and  that  of  the  talents  in  Matthew  is  difficult  to 
determine.  Strauss  has  alleged  that  Luke's  was  a  combination  of  that  of  the  hus- 
bandmen (Luke  20)  and  that  of  the  talents  (Matt.  25).  But  the  internal  harmony  of 
Luke's  description,  which  Holtzmann  acknowledges,  does  not  admit  of  this  suppo- 
sition. Meyer  regards  it  as  a  rehandling  of  the  parable  of  the  talents  in  Mattiiew. 
The  action  is  undoubtedly  similar,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  the  thought  is  radically  differ- 
ent. The  aim  of  Matthew's  parable  seems  to  be  to  encourage  those  who  have  re- 
ceived less,  by  promising  them  the  same  approbation  from  the  Master  if  they  are 
equally  faithful,  and  by  putting  Ihem  on  their  guard  against  the  temptation  of  mak- 
ing their  inferiority  a  motive  to  spiritual  indifference,  and  a  pretext  for  idleness.  We 
have  seen  that  the  idea  of  the  parable  in  Luke  is  quite  different.  It  must  therefore 
be  admitted  that  there  were  two  parables  uttered,  but  tliat  their  images  were  borrowed 
from  very  similar  fields  of  life.  The  analogy  between  the  two  descriptions  may 
perhaps  have  caused  the  importation  of  some  details  from  the  one  into  the  otlier  (e.g., 
the  dialogue  between  the  master  and  the  unfaithful  servant). 

Here  we  have  readied  the  end  of  that  journey,  the  account  of  which  begins  0  :  51. 
Jesus  first  traversed  the  countries  lying  south  from  the  old  scene  of  His  activity,  then 
the  border  regions  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  finally  Perea  ;  He  has  thus  come  to  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem.  From  the  moral  point  of  view.  His  work  also  has  reached  a  new 
stage.  On  tlie  one  hand,  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  is  at  its  height,  and  all  believ- 
ing Galilee,  the  nucleus  of  His  future  Church  in  Israel,  accompanies  Him  to  form 
His  retinue  when  He  shall  make  His  kingly  entry  into  His  capital  ;  on  the  other.  He 
has  completely  broken  with  the  pharisaic  party,  and  His  separation  from  the  nation 
as  such,  swayed  by  the  pharisaic  spirit,  is  consummated.  He  must  die  ;  for  to  let 
Him  live  would,  on  the  part  of  the  Sanhedrim,  be  to  abdicate. 

We  have  not  followed  step  by  step  Keim's  criticism  on  this  last  part  of  the  jour- 
ney. It  is  the  masterpiece  of  arbitrariness.  Whatever  does  not  square  witli  the 
proportions  of  Jesus  as  settled  beforehand  by  the  learned  critic,  is  eliminated  for  one 
reason  or  another.  Those  reasons  are  found  without  difficulty  when  scugbt.  After 
John,  Luke  is  the  most  abused.     For  Matthew's  two  blind  men  he  substitutes  one. 


vuw.    XIX.  :  "^T.  42u 

because  he  thinks  right  to  rcprofliicc  tlio  oilier  in  the  form  of  the  person  of  Zacchuua. 
Tinieus  (///(' /////('//vO^iiecdiut'S  ZiU'cheiis  (^/(c  ;)«/■('),  the  impure  pure!  Mark  replaces 
the  second  l)y  Tinieus,  the  I'allier  (also  blind)  of  Barliuieus  1  Keim  here  reaches  the 
heii^ht  of  Volkmar.  The  blindness  is  oveiconie  by  the  power  of  enthusiasm  which 
was  reigning  at  the  moment,  and  which,  by  exalting  the  force  of  the  vital  nervous 
tluid,  reopens  the  closed  cye-s  temporal ily  or  lastingly!  Luke  invents,  in  the  de- 
spised person  of  Zaccheus.  a  counterpart  "to  proud  Jerusalem,  which  knoics  not  the 
dnjl  of  her  visitation  (19  :  -i^).  It  is  Hue  that  this  last  expression  of  Jesus,  as  well  as 
Hi's  tears  over  Jerusalem,  with  which  it  is  connected,  is  invented,  as  much  as  the 
history  of  Zaccheus.     The  two  counterparts  are  imaijinary  ! 


FIFTH    PART. 


SOJOUEN    AT    JEKUSALEM. 


Chap.  19  :  28-21  :  38. 

This  part  includes  three  principal  events  :  I.  The  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem 
(19  :  28-44).  II.  The  exercise  of  His  Messianic  sovereignty  in  the  temple 
(19  :  45-21  :  4).  III.  The  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  Jewish 
people  (21  :  5-38).  The  relation  between  these  three  events  is  easily  understood.  The 
first  is  the  final  appeal  of  Jesus  to  His  people  ;  with  the  second  there  is  connected  the 
decisive  rejection  of  Israel  ;  the  third  is,  as  it  were,  the  pronouncing  of  the  sentence 
which  falls  on  this  refusal. 


FIKST    CYCLE. — CHAP.   19  :  28-44. 
The  Entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem. 

This  narrative  embraces  :  \st  The  preparations  for  the  entry  (vers.  28-36) ;  2d. 
The  joy  of  the  disciples  and  of  the  multitude  on  coming  in  sight  of  Jerusalem  (vers. 
38-40) ;  3d  The  tears  of  Jesus  at  the  same  instant  (vers.  41-44). 

1st.  Vers.  28-36.*  The  Preparations  for  the  Entry. — The  connection  indicated 
by  the  words,  while  thus  speaking.  He  tcent,  is  rather  moral  than  of  time:  "while 
speaking  thus  [of  the  unbelief  of  Israel],  He  nevertheless  continued  His  journey  (im- 
perf.  knopevero)  to  Jerusalem."  "EjUTrpoaOev  signifies  not  in  advance  {sli  rd  ■Kp6a6n>),  but 
before  [His  disciples],  at  their  head.  Comp.  Mark  10  .  32  :  "  They  were  in  the  way 
going  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  Jesus  went  before  them,  and  they  were  amazed,  and  as 
they  followed  they  were  afraid." 

According  to  John,  while  the  great  body  of  the  caravan  pursued  its  way  to  Jerusa- 
lem, Jesus  stopped  at  Bethany,  where  a  feast  was  prepared  for  Him,  and  where  He 
passed  one  or  even  two  nights  ;  and  it  was  after  this  stay  that  He  solemnly  entered 
the  capital,  where  the  rumor  of  His  approach  had  already  spread.  These  circum- 
stances fully  explain  the  scene  of  Palm  Day,  which  in  the  synoptical  account  comes 

*  Ver.  29.  Marclon  omitted  all  the  piece,  vers.  29-46.  i>.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit 
ftvrow  after /ura^T/rwv.  Ver.  30.  J*.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.  Or.,  /pyuv  instead  of  emuv.  B.  D. 
L.  add  nai  before  Avaavrzc.     Ver.  31.  6  Mjj.  3  Mnn.  If^'i.  Or.  omit  avTu  after  tpec-e. 


CHAP.   XIX.  :  28-44.  425 

iipon  us  somewhat  abruptly.  Blcek  finds  n  certain  obscurity  in  Luke's  expression  : 
"  When  He  came  nigh  to  Bethpliage  and  Bethany  ;''  for  it  is  not  known  how  llioso 
two  lo(;alities  are  rehitetl.  In  Mark  (11  :  1)  the  same  dilhcuity  (Matt.  21  :  1  does  not 
speak  of  IJuthany).  Add  to  this  tliat  the  O.  T  novvliere  speaks  of  a  village  called 
Ik'thphage,  and  that  tradition,  which  indicates  tiie  site  of  Bethany  so  certain)}',  says 
absolutely  nothing  about  that  of  this  hamlet.  The  Talmud  alone  mentions  Bethpliage, 
and  in  such  a  way  as  to  sliow  that  this  locality  was  very  near  Jerusalem,  and  was 
even  joined  to  the  city.  Belhphage  is  without  the  walls,  it  is  said  ;  and  the  bread 
which  is  prepared  in  it  is  sacred,  like  that  which  is  made  in  the  city  (Bab.  Pe.sachim, 
63.  2;  ]Menachoth,  7.  G,  etc.)  Lightfoot,  Kenan,  Caspari  *  have  concluded  from 
these  passages  that  Belhphage  was  not  a  handet,  but  a  district,  the  precinct  of  the'city 
extending  eastward  as  far  as  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  even  to  Bethany.  According 
to  the  Rabbins,  Jerusalem  was  to  the  people  what  the  camp  had  formerly  been  to 
Israel  in  the  wilderness.  And  as  at  the  great  feasts  the  city  could  not  contain  all  the 
pilgrims  who  came  from  a  distance,  and  who  should  strictly  have  found  an  abode  in 
the  camp  (the  city),  and  there  celebrated  the  feast,  there  was  added,  thej'^  say,  to  Jeru- 
salem, to  make  it  sufficient,  all  this  district  situated  on  the  side  of  ihe  Mount  of 
Olives,  and  which  bore  the  name  of  Bctliphafje  (place  of  figs).  Bethany  was  the  be- 
ginning of  this  district  where  the  pilgrims  encamped  in  a  mass  ;  and  perhaps  its  name 
came  from  Beth-Chani,  place  of  booths  (the  merchants'  tents  set  up  in  Ihe  sight  of  this 
multitude)  (Caspari,  p.  163).  Nothing  could  in  this  case  be  more  exact  than  the  mode 
of  expression  used  by  Luke  and  Mark  :  ichen  he  came  to  Belhphage  (the  sacred  dis- 
trict) and  to  Bethany  (the  hamlet  where  this  district  began).  'V./.aiuv  might  be  taken 
as  the  gen.  plural  of  tlala,  olice  trees  {ilaiuv).  But  in  Josephus  this  word  is  the  name 
of  the  mountain  itself  {i/Miuu,  oUce  wood)  ;  comp.  also  Acts  1  :  12.  This  is  the  most 
probable  seu.se  in  our  passage.  At  ver.  87  and  22  :  39,  where  Luke  uses  this  word  in 
the  first  sense,  he  indicates  it  by  the  art.  tuv. 

The  sending  of  the  two  disciples  proves  the  deliberate  intention  of  Jesus  to  give  a 
certain  solemnity  to  this  scene.  Till  then  He  bad  withdrawn  from  popular  expres- 
sions of  homage  ;  but  once  at  least  He  wished  to  show  Himself  as  King  Messiah  to 
His  people  (ver.  40).  It  was  a  last  call  addressed  by  Him  to  the  population  of  Jeru- 
salem (ver.  42).  This  course,  besides,  could  no  longer  compromise  His  work.  He 
knew  that  in  any  case  death  awaited  Him  in  the  capital.  John  (12  :  14)  says  simply, 
Jesus  found  the  young  ass,  without  indicating  in  what  w.ay.  But  the  words  which 
follow^  "  The  disciples  remembered  that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  Ilim,"  ver. 
16;  allude  to  a  doing  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  which  John  himsell  has  not  men- 
tioned. His  account,  therefore,  far  from  contradicting  that  of  the  Syn.,  assumes  it 
as  true.  The  remark,  whereon  yet  never  man  sat  (ver.  30).  is  in  keeping  with  the 
kingly  and  Messianic  u.se  which  is  about  to  be  made  of  the  animal.  Comp  Dent 
21  3.  Matthew  not  only  mentions  the  colt,  but  also  the  ass.  Accompanied  by  its 
mother,  the  animal,  though  not  broken  in,  would  go  the  more  quietly  What  are  Ave 
to  think  of  the  critics  (Strauss.  Volkmar)  who  allege  that,  according  to  Matthew's 
text,  .Tesus  mounted  the  two  animals  at  once  !  The  ease  with  which  .Tesus  obtains 
the  use  of  this  l)east,  which  docs  not  belong  to  Him.  is  another  trait  of  the  royal  great 
ne.ss  wl:rch  He  tiiinks  good  to  display  on  this  occasion.  OiVoj?,  ver.  31  (Maik  and 
Matthew,  ei-Otw?),  "Thus;  and  that  will  suffice."     Luke  and  Mark  do  not  cite  tho 

*  "  Chfonol.  geograph.  Einleitung  in  das  Lebeu  Jesu,"  1861),  pp.  161  and  163. 


42 C  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

prophecy  of  Zechariah.  It  was  not  necessary  that  every  one  should  understand  the 
symbolical  meaning  of  this  scene,  and  contrast  the  jieaceful  bea.st  with  the  warlike 
steeds  of  earthly  conquerors.  A  new  proof  of  the  supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus, 
which  must  nut  be  confounded  with  omniscience  ;  comp.  22  :  10,  31-84  ;  John  1  :  49, 
4  :  17,  etc.  According  to  Mark,  M'ho  loves  to  describe  details,  the  colt  was  tied  to  a 
door  at  a  crosaioay  (a/z^or5o5).  It  was  no  doubt  the  place  where  the  little  path  leading 
to  the  house  of  the  owners  of  the  ass  went  off  from  the  higliway  ;  or  might  it  be  the 
crossing  of  two  roads,  tliat  which  Jesus  followed  (going  from  east  to  west),  and  that 
which  to  the  present  day  passes  along  the  crest  of  the  mountain  (from  north  to  south)  ? 
The  term  Kvpios,  Lord  (ver.  34),  shows  the  feeling  of  sovereignty  with  which  Jesus 
acted.  It  is  probable  that  He  knew  the  owners.  In  substituting  their  gaiments  for 
the  cover  which  it  would  have  been  so  easy  to  procure,  the  disciples  wished  to  pay 
homage  to  Jesus — a  fact  brought  out  by  the  pron.  kavruv  (ver.  35).  Comp.  2  Kings 
9:13. 

2d.  Vers.  37^0.*  TJie  Entry.— From  the  moment  that  Jesus  seats  Himself  on 
the  colt.  He  becomes  the  visible  centre  of  the  assemblage,  and  the  scene  takes  a  char- 
acter more  and  more  extraordinary.  It  is  as  if  a  breathing  fiom  above  had  all  at  once 
taken  possession  of  this  multitude.  The  sight  of  the  city  und  temple  which  opens  up 
at  the  moment  contributes  to  this  burst  of  joy  and  hope  (ver.  37).  The  object  of 
kyyU^o^Toi,  coming  nigh,  is  not  TrpdS  rfi  KaraiSdasi  (Trpof  tt/v  would  be  necessary)  ;  it  is 
rather  .lerusalem,  the  true  goal  of  the  journey.  IlpoS  r^  is  a  qualification  of  yp^avro  : 
"  at  the  descent,  they  began."  From  this  elevated  point,  300  feet  above  the  terrace 
of  the  temple,  which  is  itself  raised  about  140  feet  above  the  level  of  the  valley  of  the 
Cedron,  an  extensive  view  was  had  of  the  city  and  the  whole  plain  which  it  com- 
mands, especially  of  th'j  temple,  which  rose  opposite,  immediately  above  the  valley. 
All  those  hearts  recall  at  this  moment  the  miracles  which  have  distinguished  the 
career  of  this  extraordinary  man  ;  they  are  aware  that  at  the  point  to  which  things 
have  come  His  entry  into  Jerusalem  cannot  fail  to  issue  in  a  decisive  revolution, 
although  they  form  an  utterly  false  idea  of  that  catastrophe. 

John  informs  us  that  among  all  those  miracles  there  was  one  especially  which  ex  ■ 
cited  the  enthusiasm  of  the  crowd  ;  that  was  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  Already 
on  the  previous  evening  very  many  pilgrims  had  come  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethany  to 
see  not  only  Jesus,  but  also  Lazarus,  who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead.  This  day 
the  procession  meets  at  everj^  step  with  new  troops  arriving  from  the  city  ;  and  these 
successive  meetings  call  forth  ever  and  again  new  bursts  of  joy.  The  acclamation,  ver. 
38,  is  taken  in  part  from  Ps.  118  :  25.  This  hymn  belonged  to  the  great  Hallel,  which 
was  chanted  at  the  end  of  the  Paschal  Supper  as  well  as  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 
The  people  were  accustomed  to  apply  the  expression,  lie  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  tlie 
Lord  (in  the  Psalm,  every  faithful  one  who  came  to  the  feast),  to  the  Messiah.  Prob- 
ably the  word  (iaaiT^evi,  king,  is  authentic  in  Luke  ;  and  its  omission  in  some  Mss. 
arises  from  the  texts  of  the  LXX.  and  of  Matthew.  The  expression,  in  the  name  of, 
is  dependent  not  on  blessed  be,  but  on  He  who  cometh  :  "  the  King  who  comes  on  the 
part  of  God  as  His  representative."     The  peace  in  heaven  is  that  of  the  reconciliation 

*  Ver.  37.  The  Mm.  are  divided  between  rjp^avTo  and  ripiaTo.  B.  D.,  Travruv  in- 
stead (if  -nanijv.  Ver.  38.  Instead  of  o  epx'>fj.£voc  iSacUevi,  which  T  R.  reads,  !**  H. 
o  i:i(ifji?.evs,  D.  A.  some  Mon.  Il"''<i.  o  epxo/ievoi.  Ver,  40.  !i^.  B.  L  omit  civtolq.  ^.  B. 
L.,  Kpa^ovaiv  instead  of  KeKpa^ovrai. 


CHAP.  XIX.  :  37-44.  427 

-which  the  Messiiih  comes  to  clTec't  between  God  and  (he  earth.  Lnke  omits  the  word 
Hat^iinna,  wliich  liis  readers  of  (.tcntilu  origin  would  not  have  understood. 

The  fact  related  vers.  o9  and  40  belongs  to  Luke  alone.  Plmrisees  Iiad  mingled 
wiih  the  groups,  to  spy  out  what  was  jiassing.  Aware  that  their  aulhorily  is  siipp.ug 
from  them  (Jolin  12  :  19),  they  had  recourse  to  Jesus  Himself,  begging  iJiin  to  keep 
order  in  His  crowd  of  followers.  They  are  disgusted  at  seeing  that,  not  content  with 
setting  Himself  up  as  a  prophet,  He  dares  publicly  to  accept  Messianic  homage.  The 
saying.  Rebuke  thy  disciples,  was  doubtless  accompanied  with  an  irritated  and  anxious 
look  toward  the  citadel  of  Antouia,  the  residence  of  the  Roman  garrison.  This  look 
seemed  to  say  :"  Scest  thou  not  .  .  .?  Are  not  the  Romans  there  ?  Wilt  thou 
destroy  us?  '  The  answer  of  Jesus  has  a  terrible  majesty  :  "  If  I  should  silence  all 
those  mouths,  you  would  hear  the  same  acclamations  proceeding  from  the  ground  ! 
So  nnpossible  is  it  that  an  appearance  like  this  should  not  be,  once  at  least,  saluted  on 
the  earth  as  it  deserves  to  be  !"  The  terms  used  appear  to  have  been  proverbial 
(Hab.  2  :11).  Some  have  referred  the  term,  the  stones,  to  the  walls  of  the  temple, 
and  of  the  houses  of  Jerusalem,  which,  as  they  fell  in  ruins  forty  years  after,  ren- 
dered homage  to  the  kingly  glory  of  Jesus  ;  but  this  meaning  is  far-fetched.  Tlie 
form  of  the  Paulo-post  future  (KtKpa^ovTai)  is  frequently  used  by  the  LXX.,  but, 
as  here,  without  having  the  special  signification  which  is  attached  to  it  in  classical 
Greek.  The  giammalical  reduplication  simply  expresses  the  repetition  of  the  cry  of 
those  inanimate  objects  •.  "It  wili  be  impossible  to  reduce  those  stones  to  silence,  if 
once  they  shall  begin  to  cry."    The  simple  future  in  the  Alex,  is  a  correction. 

M.  Vers.  41-44.*  The  Lamentations  of  Jesus.— ia^wshwi  reached  the  edge  of  the 
plateau  (wf  fjyyiasv) ;  the  holy  city  lies  before  His  view  !l6i:)v  ttjv  'noktv).  What  a  day 
would  it  be  for  it,  ii  the  bandage  fell  from  it.,  eyes  :  But  \7hat  has  just  passed  be- 
tween Him  and  the  Pharisees  present  has  awakened  ia  Hii  heart  the  con\  iction  of  the 
insurmountable  resistance  which  He  is  about  toiiicet.  Thou  Jesus,  seized,  and,  as  it 
were,  wrung  bj'  the  contrast  between  what  is  and  Avliat  iriight  bo,  breaks  out  into 
sobs.  'Y.K/.avne.v,  not  k^ciKpvaiv  ;  we  have  to  do  v/ith  lamentations,  with  cubbings,  not 
with  tears.  The  words  ei'en  thou  mar":  a  contrast  bct\/een  the  population  of  Jeru- 
salem and  that  multitude  of  believers  from  Galilee  and  abroad  vrliich  formed  His  reti- 
nue. AVouid  the  inhabitants  of  Jeriisalem  but  associate  thtmsehes  with  this  Mes- 
sianic fe.stivai,  their  ca[)ital  would  be  saved  !  From  that  verj'  day  would  date  the 
glory  of  Jeru.'^alem,  as  well  as  that  of  its  King.  The  two  words  ««/}£  and  oof),  omit- 
ted bj'  the  Alex.,  have  great  importance.  "  Ka/ye,  at  least  in  this  day,  thy  last  day." 
This  one  day  which  remains  to  it  would  suffice  to  secure  its  pardon  for  all  the  un- 
belief of  the  cit}',  anil  even  for  all  the  blood  of  the  prophets  fonnerly  shed  Avithin  its 
walls  !  Does  not  this  word  at  least  suppose  previous  residences  of  Jcius  at  Jerusalem  V 
2oi5,  added  to  ijuepa  {thy  day),  alludes  to  the  days,  now  past,  of  C'apernauri,  Bcthsai'da, 
and  Chorazin.  Jesus  does  not  knock  indefinitely  at  the  dcor  of  a  heart  or  of  a 
people.  In  the  words,  the  thinr/s  which  belong  to  thy  j^ace,  Jesus  thinks  at  once  of  the 
individual  salvation  of  the  inhaiiilants  and  of  the  preservation  of  the  entire  city.  By 
submitting  to  the  sovereignty  of  Jesus,  Israel  would  have  been  preserved  from  the 

*  Ver.  41.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  f-'  nv-?]  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  ctt'  avrrjv 
(Alex.).  Ver.  42.  4(.  B.  L.  Or.,  ft  eyvux:  ev  tjj  rnupa  tuvt?/  nai  nv  instead  of  ei  tyvui 
Kac  av  Kdiye  ev  ttj  Tjutpa  aov  rnvr?).  ^  B.  L.  omit  aov  after  upT/rriv.  Ver.  43.  i^.  C. 
L. .  Triipemia'/.ovejtv  instead  of  nepiiia/ovaiv.  Ver.  44.  The  MSS.  are  divided  between  eTrit 
hOu  (T.  K.)  and  e-i  /lOov. 


428  COMMENTAllY   OIT   ST.  LUKE, 

spirit  of  carnal  exaltation  which  led  to  its  ruin.  The  npodoais  of,  Oh  if  .  .  .  ia 
understood,  as  at  l;i  :  9.  By  ttie  vvd  6e,  but  now,  Jesus  reverts  from  this  ideal  salva- 
tion wliich  He  has  been  contemplating  to  the  sad  reality.  We  must  beware  of  taking, 
■willi  some  commentators,  as  the  subject  of  cKpviST},  are  hid,  the  whole  of  the  follow- 
ing chiuse  :  "  it  is  concealed  from  thine  eyes  that  .  .  ."  The  sentence  thus  read 
■would  drag  intolerably. 

Instead  of  the  daysof  deliverance  and  glory,  thelmage  of  which  hasjiist  passed  be- 
fore His  mind,  Jesus  sees  others  approaching,  which  fill  His  soul  with  sadness  (vers. 
43  and  44).  Modern  criticism  agrees  iu  asserting  that  this  description  of  the  destruction 
of  Jeruir.alem  in  Luke  includes  particulars  so  precise,  that  it  could  only  have  been 
given  ah  eventu.  It  therefore  concludes  confidently  from  this  passage  that  our  Gospel 
■was  composed  after  this  catastrophe.  But  iu  this  case  we  must  refuse  to  allow  Jesus 
any  supernatural  knowledge,  and  relegate  to  the  domain  of  myth  or  imposture  all  the 
facts  of  evangelical  history  in  which  it  is  implied,  e.g.,  the  announcement  of  Peter's 
denial,  so  well  attested  by  the  four  Gospels.  Besides,  if  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  foreseen  and  announced  by  Jesus,  as  is  implied  in  His 
foreseeing  the  siege,  is  it  not  evident  that  all  the  particulars  of  the  following  descrip- 
tion must  have  presented  themselves  spontaneously  to  His  mind  ?  We  know  well 
how  Jesus  loves  to  individualize  His  idea  by  giving  the  most  concrete  details  of  its 
realization.  Comp.  chap.  17.  Xapa^,  a  palisaile  of  stakes  filled  in  with  branches  and 
earth,  and  generally  strengthened  by  a  ditch,  behind  which  the  besiegers  sheltered 
themselves.  Such  a  rampart  was  really  constructed  by  Titus.  The  Jews  burned  it 
in  a  sally  ;  it  was  replaced  by  a  wall.  In  the  LXX.  a^acpll^Eiv  signifies,  to  dash  on  the 
ground.  But  in  good  Greek  it  signifies,  to  bring  down  to  the  level  of  the  ground.  The 
last  sense  suits  better  here,  for  it  applies  both  to  the  houses  levelled  with  the  ground 
and  to  the  slauglitered  inhiibitants.  Jesus,  like  the  Zechariah  of  the  O.  T.  (Zech.  11) 
and  the  Zacharias  of  the  New  (Luke  1  :  G8),  represents  His  coming  as  the  last  visit  of 
God  to  His  people.  The  word  KaipuS,  the  favorable  time,  shows  that  this  visit  of  God 
IS  this  day  reaching  its  close. 

This  accoiuit  is  one  of  the  gems  of  our  Gospel.  After  those  arresting  details, 
Luke  does  not  even  mention  the  entry  into  the  city.  The  whole  interest  for  him  lies 
in  the  events  which  precede.  Mark  (11  :  11)  and  Matthew  (21  :  10)  proceed  other- 
wise. The  latter  sets  himself  to  paint  the  emotion  with  which  the  whole  city  wa3 
seized.  Mark  (11  :  11)  describes  in  a  remarkable  way  the  impressions  of  Jesus  on 
the  evening  of  the  day.  Accounts  so  different  cannot  be  derived  from  the  same 
written  source. 

SECOND    CYCLE. — CHAP.  19  :  45-21  :  4. 
Tlie  Reign  of  Jesus  in  tJte  Temple. 

From  this  moment  Jesus  establishes  Himself  as  a  sovereign  in  His  Father's 
house.  He  there  discharges  the  functions  not  only  of  a  prophet,  but  of  a  legislator 
and  judge  ;  for  some  days  the  theocratic  authorities  seem  to  abdicate  their  powera 
into  His  hands.  These  are  the  days  of  the  Messiah's  sovereignty  in  His  temple  (]\lal. 
3  :  1,  2). 

This  section  contains  the  following  facts :  Jesus  driving  out  the  sellers 
(19  :  45-48)  ;  His  answer  to  an  official  t|uestion  of  the  Sanhedrim  regarding  II is  com- 
petence (30  ;  1-8) ;  His  anuouncing  their  deprivation  of  authority  (20  ;  9-10)  ;    His 


CHAP.  XIX.  :  45-48.  429 

escape  from  the  snares  laid  for  Him  bj'  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducces  (20  :  20-26  and 
27-40)  ;  His  pullinii;  to  them  a  quesUon  respecting  the  person  of  (he  Messiah 
(20  :  41-44)  ;  His  guarding  the  people  against  those  seducers  (20  :  45-47)  ;  His  setting 
up,  in  opposition  to  their  false  system  of  moral  appreciation,  the  true  standard  of 
divine  judgment  (21  :  1-4). 

1.  Rrpulnion  of  tlie  Sellers  :  19  :  45-48.  Vers.  45-48.*  Without  Mark's  narrative 
•we  should  think  that  the  expulsion  of  the  sellers  toolc  place  on  the  day  of  the  entry 
into  .Terusulem.  But  from  that  evangelist,  whose  account  is  here  peculiarly  exact,  Ave  / 
learn  that  the  entry  did  not  take  place  till  toward  the  close  of  the  day,  and  that  on 
that  evening  the  Lord  did  nothing  but  give  Himself  up  to  the  contemplation  of  the 
temple.  It  was  on  the  morrow,  when  He  returned  from  Bethany,  that  He  purified 
this  place  from  the  profanations  which  were  publicly  committed  in  it.  If  ]\Iatlhew 
and  Luke  had  had  before  them  the  account  of  the  original  Mark,  how  and  why  would 
they  have  altered  it  thus  ?  Holtzmann  supposes  that  Matthew  intended  by  this  trans- 
position to  connect  the  Honanna  of  the  children  (related  immediately  afterward)  with 
the  Il^saana  of  the  multitude.  The  futility  of  this  reason  is  obvious.  And  why 
and  how  should  Luke,  who  does  not  relate  the  Ilosanna  of  the  children,  introduce 
the  same  change  into  the  common  document,  and  that  without  having  known  Mat- 
thew's narrative  !  The  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem  took  place  either  on  Sunday 
("  Comment,  sur  I'evang.  de  Jean,"  t.  ii.  pp.  371-373)  or  on  the  Monday  ;  it  would 
therefore  be  Monda}''  or  Tuesdaj"-  morning  when  He  drove  out  the  sellers.  Stalls 
(rir^n)  h^^l  h^Gn  set  up  in  the  court  of  the  Gentiles.  Tliere  were  sold  the  animals 
required  as  sacrifices  ;  there  pilgrims,  who  came  from  all  countries  of  the  world, 
found  the  coins  of  the  country  which  they  needed.  There  is  nothing  to  prove  that 
this  exchange  had  to  do  with  the  didrachma  which  was  paid  for  the  temple. f  The 
words  /cat  (lyopiH^ovTaZ,  and  tliem  that  bouf/ht,  are  perhaps  borrowed  from  the  other 
two  Syn.  But  they  may  also  have  been  omitted,  in  consequence  of  confounding  the 
two  endings  I'ra?.  The  saying  of  Jesus  is  taken  from  Isa.  56  :  7  and  Jer.  7  :  11. 
Luke  does  not,  like  ]\lark,  quote  the  first  passage  to  the  end  :  "  My  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  TrtZcri  rois  (:()vea(.,for  all  peoples.'"  Those  last  words,  how- 
ever, agreed  perfectly  with  the  spirit  of  his  Gospel.  He  has  not  therefore  borrowed 
this  quotation  from  Mark.  The  appropriateness  of  this  quotation  from  Isaiah  is  tJie 
more  striking,  becau.se  it  was  in  the  court  of  the  Gentiles  that  those  profanations 
were  passing.  Israel  was  depriving  the  Gentiles  of  the  place  which  Jehovah  had 
positively  reserved  for  them  in  His  house  (1  Kings  8  :  41-43).  By  the  designation, 
a  den  of  thieves,  Jesus  alludes  to  the  deceptions  which  were  connected  with  tho.se  dif- 
ferent bargainings,  and  especially  with  the  business  of  the  exchangers.  It  Israel  in 
a  spirit  of  holiness  had  joined  with  .Jesus  in  this  procedure,  the  act  would  have  ceased 
to  have  a  simply  t^'pical  value  ;  it  would  have  become  the  real  inauguration  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom. 

Vers.  47  and  48  are  of  the  nature  of  a,  summary  ;  the  KaO'  I'mepav,  daily,  and  the 
imperfects,  they  soiiglU,  etc.,  prove  that  Luke  does  not  aflPect  to  give  a  complete 
account  of  these  last  days.  The  words,  tJie  chief  of  the  j^eople,  are  added  as  an  app.n- 
dix  to  the  subject  of  the  verb  sovght.     They  probably  denote  the  chiefs  of  the  syua- 

*  Ver.  45.  i*.  B.  C.  L.  13  Mnn.  Or.  omit  rv  avru  after  TrwAowrns.  !!*.  B.  L.  2  Mnn. 
Or.  omit  Kni  ayopa^ovrai.  Ver.  46.  i4.  omits  eari.  B.  L.  K.  9  Mnn.  Or.  add  kui  earai 
before  o  oiko^,  and  reject  eotlv. 

\  As  we  had  supposed  in  our  "  Comment,  sur  I'evang.  de  Jean,"  t.  i.  p.  876. 


430  COMMENTARY   ON  ST.  LUKE. 

gogue  reprt'senting  the  people,  who,  with  the  priests  and  scribes,  formed  the  Sanhe 
diini.  This  singular  construction  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  real  instigators  of  hos- 
tilities against  Jesus  were  the  priests  and  scribes  ;  the  chief  of  the  people  ouly  yitldi  d 
to  this  pressure.  This  idea  forms  the  transition  from  ver.  47  to  ver.  48.  The  people 
formed  the  support  of  Jesus  against  the  theocratic  authorities.  Certainly,  if  He  iiad 
thought  of  estal)lishing  an  earthly  kingdom,  now  would  have  been  the  time.  The 
passage  Mark  11  :  18  is  the  parallel  of  those  two  verses.  But  neither  of  the  two 
accounts  can  x^roceed  from  the  other. 

Should  this  event  be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  similar  one  which  .Tohn  places 
at  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry,  2  :  13,  et  seq.  ?  This  setuis  to  have  been  the  gen 
erally  received  opinion  in  Origeu's  time  (in  Joli.  T.  x.  15).  As  the  Syn.  relate  none 
hut  this  last  residence  at  Jerusalem,  it  would  be  very  natural  fur  them  to  introduce 
here  different  events  which  properly  tielonged  to  previous  residences.  See,  neveilhe- 
)ess,  in  our  "  Comment,  sur  I'evaug.  de  Jean,"  t.  i.  p.  391,  the  reasons  which  make 
it  probable  that  the  two  events  are  different.  Here  we  shall  add  two  remaiks:  1. 
Mark's  narrative  must  rest  on  the  detailed  account  of  an  eye-witness.  Comj).  those 
minute  particulars  :  "  And  Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem,  and  into  the  temple  ;  and 
when  He  had  looked  round  about  upon  all  things,  and  now  the  eventide  was  come,  He 
went  out  unto  Bethany  with  the  Twelve"  (11  :  11)  ;  "  And  woidd  not  suffer  that 
any  man  should  carry  any  vessel  through  the  temple"  (ver.  16).  These  are  such  de- 
tails as  are  not  invented  ;  it  was  not  tradilioa  that  had  preserved  them  (see  Luke  and 
Matthew).  They  proceed,  therefore,  from  an  eye-witness.  How  in  this  case  can  we 
question  Marli's  narrative,  and  consequently  that  of  the  three  Syn.  ?  3.  If  Jesus  was 
returning  for  the  first  time  after  the  lapse  of  two  yeais  (John  2)  to  the  feast  of  Pa.ss- 
over.  which  more  than  any  otlier  gave  occasion  to  those  scandals  (Bleek  on  Matt. 
21  :  12),  He  could  not  but  be  roused  anew  against  the  abuses  v^'hich  lie  had  ch<>cked 
the  lirst  time,  more  especially  in  the  Messianic  attitude  which  He  had  taken  up. 
Here,  then,  again  John  supplies  what  the  others  have  omitted,  and  omits  what  they 
have  sufflcienlly  narrated. 

3.  The  Question  of  the  Sanhedrim:  30  :  1-8. — Vers.  1-8.*  This  account  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  preceding,  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  by  the  brief  mention  of  two  events  : 
in  Mark  11  :  16,  the  prohibition  of  Jesus  to  carry  vessels  across  the  temple — the  court 
was  probably  used  as  a  thoroughfare  (Bleek)  ;  in  Matt.  21  :  14,  et  seq.,  the  cures 
wrought  in  the  temple,  and  the  hosannas  of  the  children.  The  authority  which  Jesus 
thus  assumed  in  this  sacred  place  was  well  suited  to  occasion  the  step  taken  by  the 
Sanhedrim.  If  we  follow  Mark,  it  must  have  taken  place  on  the  day  after  the  purifi- 
cation of  the  temple  and  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  and  consequently  on  the 
Tuesday  or  Wednesday  morning.  Luke  omits  those  events,  which  were  unknown 
to  liim,  as  well  as  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  which  related  specially  to  Israel. 

Since  the  evening  before,  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  had  been  in  consultation 
UiiTEiv  of  19:  47  ) ;  and  their  seeking  had  not  been  in  vain.  The}'  liad  succeeded  in 
inventing  a  series  of  questions  fitted  to  entangle  Jesus,  or  in  the  end  to  extract  ffom 
Him  au  answer  which  would  compromise  Him  either  with  the  people  or  with  the 
Jewish  or  Gentile  authorities.     The  question  of  ver.  3  is  the  first  result  of  those  con- 

*  Ver.  1.  5*.  B.  D.  L.  Q.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.  omit  ekelvuv  after  ri/iEpcw. 
The  Mss.  are  divided  between  apxi.e()tir  (T.  R.,  Alex.)  and  lepEis  (Byz.).  Ver.  2.  ii* 
C.  omit  eLTTs  tjjilv.  J*"  B.  L.  R.  2  Mnn.  read  elttov  instead  of  F.tnE.  Ver.  3.  !^.  B.  L. 
K.  7  Mnn.  omit  eva  before  7.nyov.  Ver.  4.  !!i.  D.  L.  R.  add  to  before  luawov.  Ver 
•5.  it.  C.  D.  Syr'="^  Itpi^rique^  Vg.,  CTi^veAoytCotTo  instead  of  nwEAnytGai-To.  13  Mjj.  .sev- 
eral Mnn.  It*"i.  omit  ow  after  thnn.  Ver.  6.  it.  B.  D.  L  some  ,Mnn.,  o  >.ao-r.  n-m 
instead  of  rra;  o  /.aoi. 


CHAP.  XX.  :  1-8.  431 

claves.  Ver.  1  cnum^-ratcs  thi  three  classes  of  mcml)(TS  ccmposini;  the  Sauliedrim  ; 
it  was  therefore  a  fotinal  clep|talion,  comp.  Jolia  1  :  Itl,  et  aeq.  Tlie  ddem  are  men- 
tioned heie  also  (conip.  19  :  47)  as  seeouiiary  personaj^cs,  beslile  the  high  |)riests  and 
scii!)ea.  Tiietiist  pait  of  tlie  <nie.«>tion  relates  ta  tlie  nature  of  Jesus'  c  •inini«.sif)n  : 
is  it  d  vine  or  human  ?  The  seconil,  to  the  intirinaUate  agent  through  whom  lie  has 
received  it.  The  Sanhedrim  made  sure  that  Jetus  would  claim  a  divine  commission, 
and  hoped  to  take  advantage  of  this  declaration  to  bring  Jesus  to  its  l)ar,  and  to  sit  ia 
judgment  on  the  question.  On  the  one  hand,  Jesus  avoids  this  snare  ;  on  the  other. 
He  avoids  declining  the  universally  recognized  competency  of  the  Sanhedrim.  He 
replies  in  such  a  way  as  to  force  His  adversaries  themselves  to  declare  their  incom- 
petence. The  cpieslion  which  He  lays  before  them  is  not  a  skilful  ninna'uvre  ;  it  is 
diclated  by  the  very  nature  of  the  i^ilualiou.  Was  it  not  through  the  insliumenlality 
of  John  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  had  l)cen  divmely  accredited  to  the  jieople  ?  Tiie  ac- 
knowleilguicnt,  therefore,  of  Jesus'  authorily  really  depended  on  the  acknowledgment 
of  John's.  The  second  alternative,  r)/'H/t7i,  includes  the  two  possible  cases,  of  iiim- 
self,  orof  some  other  human  authority.  The  embarrassment  of  ills  adversaries  is 
expressed  by  the  three  Syn.  in  ways  so  different  that  it  is  impossible  to  derive  the 
three  forms  from  one  and  the  same  written  source.  This  question  has  sufficed  to 
disconcert  them.  They,  the  wise,  the  skUled,  who  affect  to  judge  of  everything  in 
the  theocracy — they  shamefully  decline  a  judgment  in  face  of  an  event  of  such  cajjital 
importance  as  was  the  appearing  of  John  !  There  is  a  blending  of  indignation  iind 
contempt  in  \\w  ncitlier  do  1  ot  ^ti?<w%  (ver.  8).  But  that  answer  which  He  refuses 
them,  the}'  who  have  refused  Him  theirs,  He  goes  on  to  give  immediately  after  in  the 
following  parable.  Only  it  is  to  tlie  whole  people  that  He  will  address  it  {-pbi  -dv  /.aov, 
ver.  9),  as  a  solemn  [irotestation  against  the  hypocritical  conduct  of  their  chiefs, 

Why  did  Luke  omit  the  cursing  of  the  barren  tig-tree?  He  was  well  aware, 
answers  Volkmar,  that  it  was  simply  an  uka  represented  by  Matk  in  the  form  of  a 
faC  ;  and  he  restored  to  it  it  true  character  by  presenting  it,  18  :  6-fl.  in  the  form  of  a 
parable.  So  the  descri[)lion  of  God's  patience  toward  Israel,  the  barren  ti^-trce  (18  ;  0-0), 
IS  one  and  the  same  lesson  with  the  cursing  of  that  same  tig-tree  !  Why  does 
Matthew  make  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree  and  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  His  dis- 
ciples on  that  occasion  fall  at  the  same  perifxi  and  on  the  same  day— two  facts  wliicii 
are  separated  in  Markby  a  whole  day?  Holtzmaun  answers:  On  reading  (Mark 
11  :  12)  the  first  half  of  this  account,  jMatthew  determined  to  leave  it  out.  But  on 
coming  to  the  second  half  (Mark  /}  :  20),  he  took  the  resolution  to  insert  it  ;  only  he 
conibiued  them  in  one.  So,  when  the  evangelist  was  composing  his  narrative,  he 
reati  for  the  tirst  time  the  document  containing  the  history  which  he  was  relating  ! 
In  view'  of  such  admirable  discoveries,  is  there  not  reason  to  say  :  Binum  teneatin? 

3.  The  Parable  of  the  Hui>bandmen  :  20  :  9-19.— This  j)arable,  in  3Iatthew,  is  pre- 
ceded by  that  of  the  two  sons.  If,  as  the  terms  of  the  latter  suppose,  it  applies  to 
the  conduct  of  the  chiefs  toward  John  the  Baptist,  it  is  .'admirably  placed  before  that 
of  the  husbandmen,  which  depicts  the  ctmduct  of  those  same  chiefs  toward  .lesus. 

Vers.  9-12.*  We  have  just  attested  the  accuracy  of  the  introduction,  and  espe- 
cially that  of  the  words  to  the  people,  ver.  9.     Holtzmanu  judges  otherwise  :  "  A  par- 

*  Ver.  9.  Marcion  omitted  vers.  9-18.  19  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Men.  lipie'iT", 
Vg.  omit  Tii  after  aiOpoj-o?,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  A.  some  'Mun  Syr.  Ver  10. 
!*.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnii.  It"''i.  omit  ev  befoie  Kaepu.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between 
Jwfftv  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  dunnv^ii'  (xVIex.).  Ver.  12.  A.  K.  II.  some  Mnn.  lipi-'isno, 
Vg.,  KaKtivov  instead  of  Kai  rovrov. 


432  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

able  inappropriately  addressed  to  the  people  in  Luke,"  says  he.  Is  it  possible  to  pro. 
nouuce  a  falser  judgaient  ?  The  vine  deuotes  the  theocratic  people,  aud  the  husband- 
men the  authorities  who  govern  them.  Luke  speaks  neither  of  the  tower  meant  to 
receive  the  workmen's  tools  aud  to  guard  the  domain,  which  perhaps  represents  the 
kingly  office  ;  nor  of  the  wine-press,  the  means  of  turning  the  domain  to  account, 
whicii  is  perhaps  the  image  of  the  priesthood  (comp.  Matthew  aud  Mark).  The 
absence  of  the  proprietor  corresponds  to  that  whole  period  of  the  O.  T.  which  fol- 
lowed the  great  manifestations  by  which  God  founded  the  theocracy— the  going  out 
of  Egypt,  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  settlement  of  Israel  in  Canaan.  From  that 
moment  Israel  should  have  offered  to  its  God  the  fruits  of  a  gratitude  and  fidelity  pro- 
portioned to  the  favor  which  it  had  received  from  Him.  The  three  servants  succes- 
sively sent  represent  the  successive  groups  of  prophets,  those  divine  messengers 
whose  struggles  and  sufi'erings  are  described  (Heb.  11)  in  such  lively  colors.  There 
is  a  climax  in  the  conduct  of  the  husbandmen  :  ver.  10,  the  envoy  is  beaten  ;  ver.  11, 
beaten  and  shamefully  abused  ;  ver.  12,  wounded  to  death  and  cast  out  of  the  vine- 
yard. In  this  last  touch,  Jesus  alludes  to  the  fate  of  Zacharias  (11  :  51),  and  probably 
also  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  In  Mark  the  climax  is  nearly  the  same  :  sdeipav  {to 
beat),  £KE(pa?,acu(ynv  (here,  to  icound  m  the  head),  aniKTeaav  {to  kill).  Mark  speaks  also 
of  other  messengers  who  underwent  the  same  treatment  ;  it  is  perhaps  this  last 
description  which  should  be  applied  to  John  the  Baptist.  Matthew  speaks  only  of 
two  sendiugs,  but  each  embracing  several  individuals.  Should  we  understand  the 
two  principal  groups  of  prophets  :  Isaiah,  with  his  surrounding  of  minor  prophets, 
and  Jeremiah  with  his  ?  The  Hebraistic  expression  npuaiOeTo  Treurjjai.  (vers.  11  and  12) 
sh(jws  that  Luke  is  working  on  an  Aramaic  document.  No  similar  expression  occurs 
in  Matthew  and  Mark. 

Vers.  13-16.*  The  master  of  the  vineyard  rouses  himself  in  view  of  this  obstinate 
and  insolent  rejection  :  What  shall  I  do?  And  this  deliberation  leads  him  to  a  final 
measure  :  I  will  send  my  beloved  son.  This  saying,  put  at  that  time  by  Jesus  in  the 
mouth  of  God,  has  a  peculiar  solemnity.  There  is  His  answer  to  the  question  :  By 
what  authority  doest  thmi  these  things?  Here,  as  everywhere,  the  meaning  of  the  title 
son  transcends  absolutely  the  notion  of  Messiah,  or  theocratic  kmg,  or  any  office 
whatever.  The  title  expresses  above  all  the  notion  of  a  personal  relation  to  God  as 
Father.  The  tlieocratic  office  flows  from  this  relation.  By  this  name,  Jesus  estab- 
lishes between  the  servants  and  Himself  an  immeasurable  distance.  This  was  implied 
already  by  the  question,  Wuit  shall  1  do  .  .  .?  which  suggests  the  divine  dia- 
logue. Gen.  1  :  26,  whereby  the  creation  of  inferior  beings  is  separated  from  th:it  of 
man.  *I(tu5,  properly,  in  a  way  agreeable  to  expectation;  and  hence,  undoi/biedly  (E. 
V.  improperly,  it  may  be).  But  does  not  God  know  beforehand  the  result  of  this  hist 
experiment?  True  ;  but  this  failure  will  not  at  all  overturn  His  plan.  Not  only  will 
the  mission  of  this  last  messenger  be  successful  with  so7ne,  but  the  resistance  of  the 
people  as  a  whole,  by  bringing  on  their  destruction,  will  open  up  the  world  to  the 
free  preaching  of  salvation  by  those  few.  The  ignorance  of  the  future  which  is 
ascribed  to  the  master  of  the  vineyard  belongs  to  the  figure.  The  idea  represented  by 
this  detail  is  simply  the  reality  of  human  liberty. 

*  Ver.  13.  i^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Q.  some  Mon.  Syr"'.  ItP'^''^^^,  omit  tdnvre?  before 
svTpmT7j(7ov-ai.  Ver.  14.  A.  K.  n.  4  Mnn.  ItP'^'i^S  Su/^-oyiauvTo  iusiead  of  (he?.nyiCni'To. 
^.  B.  D.  L.  li.  some  Mnii..  ■!rpo(  aA/T/Aoi.f  instead  of  irpoi  eavTovS.  6  Mjj.  12  Man. 
jipierique^  omit  i5evTe  btiforc  anOKTElVCJ/ieV. 


CHAP.   XX.  :  13-19.  433 

The  deliberation  of  the  husbaudiuen  (ver.  14)  is  an  allusion  to  that  of  the  chiefs, 
ver.  ;")  {<he/o)iKovTo  or — aavro  ;  conip.  with  avve/.o-^loavTo).  Jesus  unveiis  before  all  liic 
people  the  i)luts  of  their  chiefs,  and  the  real  cause  of  the  hatred  with  wdiieh  lliey 
follow  Him.  These  men  have  made  the  tlieocracy  their  property  (.loiin  11  :  48  :  our 
])l<iceotir  nation)  ;  and  this  power,  wliich  till  now  they  haveturni-d  to  their  advantage, 
they  cannot  bring  themselves  to  give  up  into  the  hands  of  tlie  Son,  wlio  comes  to 
claim  it  iu  His  Father's  name.  At  ver.  15  Jesus  describes  with  the  most  striking 
calmness  the  crime  which  they  are  pieparing  to  commit  on  His  person,  and  from 
which  He  makes  not  the  slightest  effort  to  escape.  Is  the  act  of  casting  out  of  thf, 
mneyani,  which  precedes  tlie  murder,  intended  to  represent  the  excommunication 
already  pronounced  on  Jesus  and  His  adherents  (John  9  :  22) '!  In  Mark  the  murder 
precedes  ;  then  the  dead  body  is  thrown  out.  The  punishment  announced  in  ver.  IG 
might,  according  to  Luke  and  Murk,  apply  only  to  the  theocratic  authorities,  and  not 
to  the  entire  peoi'Ie.  The  aAAoL,  the  other  husbandmen,  would  in  this  case  designate 
the  apostles  and  their  successors.  But  tlie  sense  appears  to  be  diffeient  according  to 
Matthew.  Here  the  wcid  to  otlicvs  i?>i\\n'A  explained,  21  :  43  :  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
shall  be  given  to  a  nation  {tOvet)  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  According  to  this, 
the  point  in  question  is  not  the  substitution  of  the  chiefs  of  the  N.  T.  for  those  of  the 
Old,  but  that  of  GealUa  peoples  for  the  chosen  people.  What  would  our  critics  say 
if  the  parts  were  exchanged,  if  Luke  had  expressed  himself  here  as  Matthew  does, 
and  Matthew  as  Luke  ?  JIatlhew  puts  the  answer  of  ver.  16  in  the  mouth  of  the 
adversaries  of  Jesus,  which  on  their  part  could  only  mean,  "  He  shall  destroy  them, 
that  is  evident  ;  but  what  have  we  to  do  with  thai  ?  Thy  history  is  but  an  empty 
tale."  Yet  as  it  is  said  in  ver.  19  that  it  was  not  till  later  that  His  adversaries  under- 
stood the  bearing  of  the  parable,  the  narrative  of  Luke  and  Mark  is  more  natuial. 
The  connection  between  uKovaavrei  and  «7roi'  is  this  ;  "  they  had  no  sooner  heard 
than,  deprecating  the  owe?!,  they  said     .     .     ." 

Vers.  17-19.*  'E///iAfi/iac,  having  beheld  them,  indicates  the  serious,  even  menacing 
expression  which  He  then  a.ssumed.  The  ^s  is  adversative  :  "  Sucli  a  thing,  you  say 
will  never  happen  ;  but  what  meaning,  then,  do  you  give  to  this  saying  .  .  .  ?" 
Whether  in  the  context  of  Ps.  118  the  stone  rejected  be  the  Jewi.sh  people  as  a  whole, 
in  comparison  with  the  great  woi Id-powers,  or  (according  to  Bleek  and  others)  the 
believing  part  of  the  people  rejected  by  the  unbelieving  majority  in  both  cases,  the 
image  of  the  stone  despised  by  the  builders  applies  indirectly  to  the  Messiah,  in  whom 
alone  Israel's  mission  to  the  world,  and  that  of  the  believing  part  of  the  people  to  the 
whole,  was  realized.  It  is  ever,  at  all  stages  of  their  history,  the  same  law  whose  ap- 
plication is  repeated.  The  ace.  A/Qov  is  a  case  of  attraction  arising  fiom  the  relative 
pron.  which  follows.  This  form  is  texlually  taken  from  the  LXX.  (Ps.  118  :  22). 
The  corner-stone  is  that  which  forms  the  junction  between  the  two  most  conspicuous 
•walls,  that  which  is  laid  with  peculiar  solemnity.  A  truth  so  stern  as  tlie  sentence  of 
ver.  18  required  to  be  wrapped  up  in  a  biblical  quotation.  The  words  of  Jesus  recall 
Isa.  8  :  14,  1.5,  and  Dan.  2  :  44.  In  Isaiah,  the  Messiah  is  represented  as  a  consecrated 
stone,  against  which  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  broken.  Simeon  (2  :  34) 
makes  reference  to  this  saying.  Thesui)ject  iu  question  is  the  Messiah  in  His  humili- 
ation. A  man's  dashing  hini'-elf  against  this  stone  laid  on  the  earth  means  rejccling 
Him  during  the  time  of  His  humiliation.     In  the  second  part  of  the  verse,  wdiere  this 

*  Ver.  10.  C.  D.  15  Mnn.  Syr.  Iiri-'''T",   Vg.,  r^Tj'ow  instead  of  t^Jirnnav. 


434  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

stuDe  is  represented  as  falling  from  the  top  of  the  building,  the  subject  is  the  glorified 
Messiah  crushing  all  earthly  oppositions  by  the  manifestations  of  His  wrath.  In 
Dun.  2  :  44  the  word  /uKfidv  is  also  found  MKfzijaei  ndaa^  rile  jSaaiAEiaS),  strictl}'  :  to 
winnow,  and  hence  to  scatter  to  the  wind.  It  is  therefore  dangerous  to  encounter  this 
stone,  eitlier  by  dashing  against  it  while  it  is  yet  laid  on  the  ground,  as  Israel  is  doing, 
or  whether,  when  it  shall  be  raised  to  the  top  of  the  building,  men  provoke  it  to  fall 
on  their  own  head,  as  the  other  nations  shall  one  day  do.  A  new  deliberation  among 
the  rulers  follows  this  terrible  shock  (ver.  19).  But  fear  of  the  yteople  restrains  them. 
There  is  a  correspondence  between  the  two  Kai  before  itfioiSj/Orjcfav  and  before  e^yTTjaav. 
The  two  feelings, /e«;Y«5' and  seeking  (to  put  Him  to  death),  struggle  within  their 
heart.  The/<?r  at  the  end  of  the  verse  bears  on  the  first  proposition  ;  and  the  Trpds 
avTovc  signifies,  with  a  view  to  them  (ver.  9,  19  :  9).  In  Matthew  there  occurs  here 
the  parable  of  the  great  supper.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  Jesus  heaped  up  at  one 
time  so  many  figures  of  the  same  kind.  The  association  of  ideas  which  led  the 
evangelist  to  insert  the  parable  here  is  sufficiently  obvious. 

4.  77ie  Question  of  the  Phai'isces  :  20  :  20-2G. — The  otficial  question  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim served  only  to  prepare  a  triumpli  for  Jesus.  From  this  time  forth  the  different 
pai  ties  make  attempts  on  Ilim  separately,  and  that  by  means  of  captious  questions 
adroitly  prepared. 

Vers.  20-26.*  The  introduction  to  this  narrative  presents  in  our  three  Sjm.  (Matt. 
22  :  15  ;  Mark  12  :  18)  some  marked  shades  of  meaning.  The  simplest  form  is  that  of 
Luke.  The  priests  and  scribes  (ver.  19)  suborn  certain  parties,  who,  affecting  a  scni- 
ple  of  conscience  ("  feigning  themselves  just  men"),  interrogate  Jesus  as  to  wliether 
it  is  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Gentile  authorities.  The  snare  was  this  :  Did  Jesus 
answer  in  the  affirmative?  It  was  a  means  of  destroying  His  influence  with  the 
people  by  stigmatizing  His  Messianic  pretensions.  Did  He  reply  in  the  negative? 
He  fell  as  a  rebel  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  governor,  who  would  make  short  work 
with  Him.  This  is  brought  out  in  ver.  20  by  the  emphatic  accumulation  of  the  terms 
apxt],  i^ovaia,  military  power  and  judicial  authority.  Once  given  over  to  that  power, 
Jesus  would  be  in  good  hands,  and  the  Sanhedrim  would  have  no  more  concern  about 
the  favor  with  which  the  people  surrounded  Him.  Aoyouand  airov  ought  both  to  be 
taken,  notwithstanding  Bleek's  scruples,  as  immediately  dependent  on  itTL^uiSiovTaL  : 
"  To  take  Him  by  surprise,  and  to  catch  a  word  from  Him  by  surprise."  Accord- 
ing to  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  Pharisees  in  this  case  united  with  (he  Herodians.  Bleek 
thinks  that  the  bond  of  union  between  the  one  party,  fanatical  zealots  for  national 
independence,  and  the  other,  devoted  partisans  of  Herod's  throne,  was  common  an- 
tipathy to  foreign  domination.  The  presence  of  the  Herodians  was  intended  to  en- 
courage Jesus  to  answer  in  the  negative,  and  .so  to  put  Himself  in  conflict  with  Pilate. 
But  the  attitude  of  the  Herodians  toward  the  Roman  power  was  totally  different  from 
Bleek's  view  of  it.  The  Herods  had  rather  planted  themselves  in  Israel  as  the  vas- 
sals of  Caesar.     The  Herodians,  says  M.  Reuss,  "  were  the  Jews  who  had  taken  the 

*  Ver.  20.  C.  K.  V.  25  Mnn.,  7,oyov  ;  D.,  tuv  loyuv  ;  L.,  ^.oyouS  instead  of  Tinyov. 
!S.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  unre  instead  of  eif;  to.  Ver.  22.  ii.  A.  B.  L.  6  Mnn.,  t^^uhS  instead  of 
T)Hiv.  Ver.  28.  ii.  B.  L.  6  Mnn.  omitr(/ie  TreifjaCeTe.  Ver.  24.  7  Mjj.  30  Mini.,  dei^aTe 
instead  of  errahi^aTe.  it.  C.  L.  50  Mnn.  add  oi  fJe  e^ei^av  Kai  enrev  after  ^rjvapiov  (lake  n 
from  the  parall.).  !*.  B.  L.  Syr""^''.,  ol  (h  instead  of  annKptOevTeide.  Ver.  25.  !!*.  B.  L. 
7  Mnn.,  npoS  avrovi  instead  of  avroii.  Ver.  2G.  it.  B.  L.,  mv  prjuuToi  instead  of  avrov 
pr/uaroi. 


I'HAI'.    X\.  :  -iO-'^i;.  435 

sidf!  of  (he  family  of  Ilcrod  npniiist  Iboptvtriots,"  that  is  to  say,  ngninst  the  Pliariseus.* 
We  have  Uioiefore  licre,  what  so  often  occurs  in  history,  a  coalition  of  two  hostile 
parlies,  with  (he  view  of  erushing  a  third,  dangerous  to  both.  In  Galilee  we  have 
already  seen  a  similar  conihinalion  (Mark  3:0;  Luke  13  :  31,  32).  There  was  a  per- 
fectly good  reason  for  it  in  this  case.  If  the  answer  of  Jesus  required  to  be  de- 
nounced to  the  people,  this  task  would  fall  to  the  Pliarisees,  who  stood  well  with  the 
multitude.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  necessary  to  go  to  Pilate,  the  Ilerodians  would 
lake  this  part,  so  disagreeable  to  the  Pharisees.  Accordius  to  Matthew  (ver.  10),  the 
heads  of  the  pharisaic  party  took  care  to  keep  aloof.  They  attacked  Ilim  first  through 
some  of  their  disciples.  In  reality,  their  alliance  with  the  Ilerodians  conipromi.sed 
those  well-known  defenders  of  national  independence. 

The  a(hlres3  of  the  emissaries  is  variously  rendered  in  our  throe  Gospels.  ""OfjOdo?  : 
without  deviating  from  the  straight  line.  jleyEiv  •Anddj^cxdnEiv,  to  ndij  and  to  tench, 
(lifTer  as  pronouncing  on  a  question  and  stating  the  grounds  of  the  decision.  The 
Hebraistic  plua?e  Xcxufiavsiv  nij66ronov,  whu;h  must  have  been  a  frightful  barba- 
rism to  Greek  ears  (^>  take  the conntniatice,  for  :  to  accept  men's  persons),  is  fnuntl  only 
in  Luke.  It  would  therefoie  be  himself,  if  he  was  copying  Matthew  or  IMark,  who 
had  added  it  at  his  own  hand — he  who  was  writing  for  Greek  readers  !  'OSui  Geov, 
(he  %cny  of  God,  denotes  the  straight  theocratic  line  traced  out  by  the  law,  without  re- 
gard to  accomplished  facts  or  political  necessities.  They  think  by  their  phrases  to 
render  it  impr)ssible  for  Ilim  to  recoil.  There  was,  in  realit}'^ — and  this  is  what  formed 
the  apparently  insurmountable  ditficulty  of  the  question — a  contradiction  l)etween  the 
pure  theocratic  standard  and  the  actual  state  of  things.  The  normal  condition  was 
the  autonomy  of  God's  people — normal  because  founded  on  the  divine  law,  and  as 
such,  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  Jesus.  The  actual  state  of  things  was  the  subjection  of 
the  Jews  to  the  Romans — a  providential  situatitm,  and  as  such,  not  less  evidently 
willed  by  God.  How  was  this  contradiction  to  be  got  over  '?  Judas  the  Galilean,  re- 
jecting the  fact,  had  declared  himself  for  the  right  ;  he  had  perished.  This  was  the 
fate  to  which  the  rulers  wished  to  drive  Jesus.  And  if  He  recoiled,  if  lie  accepted 
the  fact,  was  this  not  to  deny  the  right,  the  legal  standard,  Moses,  God  Himself  ? 

Isit  latcfulfor  vs  {ver.  22)?  They  have  a  scruple  of  conscience!  Jesus  at  once 
discerns  the  malicious  plot  w^hich  is  at  tlie  bottom  of  the  question  ;  He  feels  that 
never  Was  a  more  dangerous  snare  laid  for  Him.  But  there  is  in  the  simplicity  of  the 
dove  a  skill  which  enables  it  to  escape  from  the  best  laid  string  of  the  fowler.  AVliat 
made  the  diliiculty  of  the  question  was  the  almost  entire  fusion  of  the  two  domains, 
the  religious  and  political,  in  the  Old  Covenant.  Jesus,  therefore,  has  now  to  dis- 
tinguish those  two  spheres,  which  the  course  of  Israelitish  history  has  in  fact  sep- 
arated and  even  contrasted,  so  that  He  may  not  be  drawn  into  applying  to  the  one  the 
absolute  standard  which  belongs  only  to  the  other.  Israel  should  depend  onl3'  on 
God,  assuredly,  but  that  in  the  religious  domain.  In  the  political  sphere,  God  may  be 
pleased  to  put  it  for  a  time  in  a  state  of  dependence  on  a  liuman  power,  as  had  for- 
merly happened  in  their  times  of  captivity,  as  is  the  case  at  present  in  relation  to  C.-esar. 
Did  not  even  the  theocratic  constitution  itself  distinguish  between  the  tribute  to  be 
paid  to  the  king  and  the  dues  to  be  paid  to  the  priests  and  the  lenii)le  ?  This  legal 
distinction  became  only  more  precise  and  emphatic  when  the  .sceptre  fell  into  Gentile 
hands.     What  remained  to  be  said  was  not  God  or  Ca'sar,  but  rather,  God  cmd  (.'.esar, 

*  Herzog's  "  Encyclopedie,"  t.  xiii.  p.  291. 


43G  COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE. 

each  iu  his  own  sphere.  The  Gentile  money  which  passed  current  in  Israel  attested 
the  providential  fact  of  the  establishment  of  the  Roman  dominion,  and  of  the  accept- 
ance of  that  state  of  things  by  the  theocratic  people.  Vbicunque  numisma  rtf/is 
alicvjus  ohtinet,  Ulic  incolce  regem  istum  pro  domino  agnoscunt,  says  the  famous  Jewish 
doctor  Maimonides  (quoted  by  Bleek).  The  piece  of  Roman  money  which  Jesus 
calls  His  adversaries  to  show,  establishes  by  the  image  and  inscription  which  it  bears 
the  existence  of  this  foreign  power  iu  the  political  and  lower  sphere  of  the  thei.cratic 
life  ;  it  is  to  this  sphere  that  the  payment  of  tribute  belongs  ;  the  debt  should  there- 
fore be  discharged.  But  above  this  sphere  there  is  that  of  the  religious  life  -which 
has  God  for  its  object.  This  sphere  is  fully  reserved  by  the  answer  of  Jesus  ;  and 
He  declares  that  all  its  obligations  can  be  fulfilled,  without  iu  the  least  doing  violence 
to  the  duties  of  the  other.  He  accepts  with  submission  the  actual  condition,  while 
reserving  fidelity  to  Him  who  can  re  establish  the  normal  condition  as  soon  as  it  shall 
seem  good  to  Him.  Jesus  Himself  had  never  felt  the  least  contradiction  between 
those  two  orders  of  duties  ;  and  it  is  simply  from  His  own  pure  consciousness  that 
He  derives  this  admirable  solution.  The  word  dnoSore,  render,  implies  the  notion 
of  moral  duty  toward  Caesar,  quite  as  much  as  toward  God.  De  Wette  is  therefore 
certainly  mistaken  here  in  limiting  the  notion  of  obligation  to  the  things  which  are 
God's,  and  applying  merely  the  notion  of  utility  to  the  things  which  are  Caesar's. 
St.  Paul  understood  the  thought  of  Jesus  better,  when  he  wrote  to  the  Romans  (13  : 1 
et  seq.)  "  Be  subject  to  the  powers  .  .  .  not  only  from  fear  of  punishment,  but 
also  for  conscience'  sake."  Comp.  1  Tim.  2  -.1  et  seq.  ;  1  Pet,  2  :  13  et  seq.  Depend- 
ence on  God  does  not  exclude,  but  involves,  not  only  many  personal  duties,  but  the 
various  external  and  providential  relations  of  dependence  in  which  the  Christian  may 
find  himself  placed,  even  that  of  slavery  (1  Cor.  7  :  22).-'  As  to  theocratic  indepen- 
dence, Jesus  knew  well  that  the  way  to  regain  it  was  not  to  violate  the  duty  of  sub- 
mission to  Caesar  by  a  revolutionary  shaking  off  of  his  yoke,  but  to  return  to  the  faith- 
ful fulfilment  of  all  duties  toward  God.  To  render  to  God  what  is  God's,  was  the 
way  for  the  people  of  God  to  obtain  anew  David  instead  of  Cajsar  as  their  Lord. 
Who  could  tind  a  word  to  condemn  in  this  solution  ?  To  the  Pharisees,  the  Render 
unto  Ccesar  ;  to  the  Herodians,  the  Render  unto  God.  Each  carries  away  his  own  les- 
son ;  .Jesus  alone  issues  triumphantly  from  the  ordeal  which  was  to  have  destroyed  Him. 
5.  The  Question  oftlm  Sadducees  :  20  :  27-40. — We  know  positively  from  Josephus 
that  the  Sadducees  denied  at  once  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  and  all  retribution  after  death  (Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4  ;  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8.  14).  It  was 
not  that  they  rejected  either  the  O.  T.  iu  general,  or  any  of  its  parts.  How,  in 
that  case,  could  they  liave  sat  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and  tilled  the  priesthood  ?f  Prob- 
ably they  did  not  find  personal  immortality  taught  clearly  enough  in  the  books  of 
Moses ;  and  as  to  the  prophetic  books,  they  ascribed  to  them  only  secondary 
authority.:}: 

*  [According  to  the  interpretation,  "use  servitude  rather."  See  Lange's  Com- 
ment, on  the  passage. — Trans.] 

f  There  is  wide  difference  of  view  on  this  matter.  Some  of  the  Fathers  and  many 
moderns  hold  that  the  Sadducees  denied  all  but  the  Peulateuch.  Otliers,  like  our 
author,  reject  this  view.  May  not  both  be  right  ?  They  did  not  openly  impugn  any 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  the}'  tacitly  ignored  what  they  did  not  like.  Are  thei-e  no 
successors  to  them  in  this  eclecticism  ? — J.  H. 

X  Read  on  this  subject  the  excellent  treatise  of  M.  Reuss,  Herzog's  "  Encyclo 
pedie, ' '  t.  xiii.  p.  280  et  seq. 


CHAP.   XX.  :  27-40.  437 

Vers.  27-33.*  Tlic  Question.— The  Sadducees,  starting  from  the  Leviratelaw  given 
by  Moses  (Deut.  25  :  5),  agreeably  to  a  patriarchal  usage  (Gen.  38)  whicli  is  slill 
allowed  by  many  Eastern  peoples,  seek  to  cover  with  ridicule  the  idea  of  a  resurrec- 
tion ;  dyTiXeyovraS  :  icho  oppose  {avri),  maintaining  that  {XEyuvreS).  The  whole 
statement  vers.  21)-o3  has  in  it  a  touch  of  sarcasm. 

Vers.  34-40.t  T/te  Anstcer. — This  answer  is  preceded  in  Matthew  and  IVIark  hy  a 
severe  icbukc,  whereby  Jesus  makes  His  questioners  aware  of  the  gross  spiriluaj  igno- 
rance involved  in  such  a  question  as  theirs.  The  answer  of  Jesus  has  also  a  sarcaslic 
chancier.  Those  accumulated  verbs,  yaue7v,  eHyaj.iiZf.60at,  especially  with  the 
frequentative  yanidxeGOai  or  htyajiiidHsaOat,  throw  a  shade  of  contempt  over  that 
•wiiole  worldly  train,  above  which  the  Sadducean  mind  is  incapable  of  rising. 
Although  from  a  moral  point  of  view  the  aiaov  jtu'XXoov,  tlieiroiidtocome,  has  already 
begun  with  the  coming  of  Chri.st,  from  a  phj'sical  point  of  view,  the  present  world  is 
prolonged  till  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  which  is  to  coincide  witli  the  restitution 
of  all  things.  The  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  very  evidently,  in  tliis  place,  not  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  in  general.  What  is  referred  to  is  a  special  i)rivik'ge  granted 
only  to  the  faithful  {ichich  shall  be  accounted  worthy ;  comp.  14  :  14  ;  the  resurrection 
of  the  just,  and  Phil.  3  :  11).^ 

The  first/*;/',  ver.  3fi,  indicates  a  casual  relation  between  the  cessation  of  marriage, 
ver.  35,  and  that  of  death,  ver.  3G.  The  object  of  marriage  is  to  preserve  the  human 
species,  to  which  otherwise  death  would  soon  put  an  eud  ;  and  this  constitution  must 
last  till  the  number  of  the  elect  whom  God  will  gather  in  is  completed.  While  ihe 
for  makes  the  cessation  of  death  to  be  the  cause  of  the  cessation  of  marriage,  the 
particle  oiirf,  neither,  brings  out  the  analogy  which  exists  between  those  two  facts. 
The  reading  ov6s  is  less  supported.  .Jesus  does  not  say  (ver.  36)  th.nt  glorified  men  are 
angels — angels  and  men  are  of  two  different  natures,  the  one  cannot  be  transformed 
into  the  other — but  that  they  are  equal  with  the  angels,  and  that  in  two  res[)ects  :  no 
death,  and  no  marriage.  Jesus  therefore  ascribes  a  body  to  the  angels,  exempt  from 
the  difference  of  sex.  This  positive  teaching  iibout  the  existence  and  nature  of  angels 
is  purposely  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  Sadducees,  because,  according  to  Acts  23  :  8, 
this  party  denied  the  existence  of  those  l)eings.  Jesus  calls  the  raised  ones  children 
of  God,  and  explains  the  title  by  that  of  children  of  the  resurrection.  Men  on  the  earth 
are  sons  of  one  another  ;  each  of  the  raised  ones  is  directly  a  child  of  God,  because 
his  body  is  an  immediate  work  of  divine  omnipotence.  It  thus  resembles  that  of  the 
angels,  whose  body  also  proceeds  directly  from  the  power  of  the  Creator — a  fact  which 
explains  the  name  sons  of  God,  hy  which  they  are  designated  in  the  O.  T.  The  Mosaic 
command  could  not  therefore  form  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 

*  Ver.  27.  !*.  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr.,  leyovTei  instead  of  avTileyovre^ .  Ver. 
28.  »*  B.  L.  P.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  lt»'ii.  Vg.,  r]  instead  of  a~nOiivTj.  Ver.  30.  !*.  B.  D 
L.,  Kai  o  'hvrepoi  instead  of  ico  :  eXaiiev  o  6£vt.  t.  yvv.  kui  ovroi  anEO.  utekvo^.  Ver.  31. 
12  !Mjj.  omit  kui.  before  ov.  Ver.  32.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  omit  -kuvtuv.  Ver. 
33.  !*.  D.  G.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It.,  earai  instead  of  yiverat. 

f  Ver.  34.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  2  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.  omit  aKOKpidei?  (which  is  taken  from 
the  parallels),  i^.  B.  L.  8  ]\Inn.,  ya/xiaKovrai.  instead  of  FKyafu^ovTai.  Ver.  36.  A.  B. 
D.  L.  P.,  ov(h  instead  of  ov-e.     Ver.  37.   Marcion  omitted  vers.  37  and  38. 

X  This  view  is  not  held  l)y  most  commentators.  The  words  do  not  recjuire  it,  and 
the  question  of  Ihe  Sadducees  did  not  contemplate  one  class  of  the  dead.  They  op- 
posed the  idea  of  future  life,  retribution,  and  tiie  raising  of  any  from  tbe  dead.  Why 
rep'y  to  them  b}'  a  statement  regarding  one  portion  of  the  dead  ? — J.  H. 


438  COAlME^'TAllY    OK   ST.   LUKE. 

rightly  understood.  Jesus  now  takes  the  offensive,  and  proves  by  that  very  Moses 
whom  they  had  been  opposing  to  Him  {Kai,  even,  before  Muses),  the  indisputable  truth 
of  the  doctrine  (vers.  '37  and  08).  The  scribes  of  the  pharisaic  party  liad  probalil}' 
often  tried  to  discover  such  a  proof  ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  dig  deeply  in  the  mine  to 
extract  from  it  this  diamond. 

In  the  phrase  ettI  tt'/c  (iarov,  eni  denotes  the  place  where  the  account  of  the  bush  is 
found.  The  choice  of  the  word  /litjvvu,  to  give  to  understand,  shows  that  Jesus  dis- 
tinguishes perfectly  between  an  express  declaration  which  does  not  exist,  and  an  in- 
dication such  as  that  which  He  proceeds  to  cite.  He  means  simply,  that  if  Moses 
had  not  had  the  idea  of  immortality,  he  would  not  have  expressed  himself  as  he  does. 
When  Moses  put  into  the  mouth  of  God  the  designation,  God  of  Abraha?n,  etc., 
many  generations  had  passed  since  the  three  patriarchs  lived  here  below  ;  and  yet 
God  still  calls  Himself  their  God.  God  cannot  be  the  God  of  a  being  who  does  not 
exist.  Therefore,  in  Him  they  live.  Mark  the  absence  of  the  article  before  the 
words  vEKpuv  and  1^(1)vtuv  :  a  God  of  dead,  of  living  beings.  In  Plato,  it  is  their  jiartici- 
pation  In  the  idea  which  guarantees  existence  ;  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  it  is  their  re- 
lation to  God  Himself.  The  dative  avTU),  to  Him,  implies  a  contrast  to  to  us,  to  whom 
the  dead  are  as  though  they  were  not.  Their  existence  and  activity  are  entirely  con- 
centrated in  their  relation  to  God.  All;  not  only  the  three  patriarchs.  The /w  bears 
on  the  word  living.     "  For  they  live,  really  dead  though  they  are  to  us." 

This  prompt  and  sublime  answer  filled  with  admiration  the  scribes  who  had  so 
often  sought  this  decisive  word  in  Moses  without  finding  it  ;  they  cannot  restrain 
themselves  from  testifying  their  joyful  surprise.  Aware  from  this  time  foith  that 
every  snare  laid  for  Him  will  be  the  occasion  for  a  glorious  manifestation  of  His  wis- 
dom, they  give  up  this  sort  of  attack  (ver.  40). 

6.  The  Question  of  Jesus :  20  :  41-44.— Vers.  41-44.*  Matthew  and  Mark  place 
here  the  question  of  a  scribe  on  the  great  commandment  of  the  law.  This  question 
•was  suggested  to  the  man,  as  we  see  from  Mark  12  :  28.  by  the  admiration  which 
filled  him  at  the  answers  which  he  had  just  heard.  According  to  Matthew,  he  wished 
yet  again  to  put  the  wisdom  of  Jesus  to  the  proof  {neipdC.uv  avmv,  Matt.  22  :  35). 
Either  Luke  did  not  know  this  narrative,  or  he  omitted  it  because  he  had  related  one 
entirely  similar,  10  :  25  et  seq. 

At  the  close  of  this  spiritual  tournament,  Jesus  in  His  turn  throws  down  a  chal- 
lenge to  His  adversaries.  Was  it  to  give  them  difficulty  for  difficulty,  entanglement 
for  entanglement?  No  ;  the  similar  question  which  He  had  put  to  them,  ver.  4.  has 
proved  to  us  that  Jesus  was  acting  in  a  wholly  different  spirit.  What,  then,  was  His 
intention  ?  He  had  just  announced  His  death,  and  pointed  out  the  authors  of  it  (par- 
able of  the  husbandmen).  Now  He  was  not  ignorant  what  the  charge  would  be 
which  they  would  use  against  Him.  He  would  be  condemned  as  a  blasphemer,  and 
that  for  having  called  Himself  the  Son  of  God  (John  5  :  18,  10  :  33  ;  Matt.  26  :  65). 
And  as  He  was  not  ignorant  that  before  such  a  tribunal  it  would  be  impossible  for 
Him  to  plead  His  cause  in  peace,  He  demonstrates  beforehand,  in  presence  of  the 
whole  people,  and  by  the  Old  Testament,  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  thus  sweeping 
away  from  the  Old  Testament  standpoint  itself  the  accusation  of  blasphemj'  which 
was  to  form  the  pretext  for  His  condemnation.  The  three  Syn.  have  preserved,  with 
slight  differences,  this  remarkable  saying,  which,  with  Luke  10  :21,  22,  and  some 

*  Ver.  41.  A.  K.  M.  n.  20  Mnn.  add  nvei  after  ?.eyov'7i.  Ver.  42.  ».  B.  L.  R. 
some  Mnn.,  avro;  yap  instead  of  Kai  avToi. 


CHAP.    XX.  :  41-44.  4oD 

oilier  passages,  forms  the  bond  of  uuioii  between  tbu  teaching  of  Jesus  in  those  Gos- 
l)els,  and  all  that  is  allirnicil  of  His  ])ersou  in  lliat  of  Johu.  If  it  is  true  that  Jesus 
applied  to  Himself  the  title  of  David's  Lord,  with  wiiicli  this  king  addressed  the  ]\Ies- 
fciah  in  Ps.  110,  the  conseiousness  of  His  divinity  is  implied  in  this  title  as  certainly  as 
in  any  declaration  whatever  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

According  to  Luke,  it  is  to  the  scribes,  according  to  Matthew  (23:41),  to  \\w. 
Phaiisees,  that  the  following  (jueMliou  is  addressed.  Mark  names  no  one.  Tlie  three 
narratives  differ  likewise  slightly  in  the  form  of  (he  question:  "How  say  they?" 
(Luke) ;  "  How  say  the  scribes  ?"  (Maik).  In  Matthew,  Jesus  declares  to  the  Phari- 
sees at  the  same  time  the  doctrine  of  the  Davidic  souship  of  the  Messiah — very  nat- 
ural diversities  if  thej'  arise  from  a  tradition  which  had  taken  various  forma,  but 
inexplicable  if  they  are  intentional,  as  they  must  be,  supposing  the  use  of  one  and  the 
same  written  source.  The  Ale.x.  read:  "For  he  himself  .  .  ;"  that  is  to  say: 
"  there  is  room  to  put  this  question  ;  for  .  .  ,"  The  Bj'z.  :  "  And  (nevertheless) 
lie  himself  hath  said  .  .  ."  Luke  says  :  in  the  book  of  Psalmn  ;  j\Iallhew  :  hi/ (he 
Spirit;  Maik  :  bi/ the  Iloly  Spirit.  The  non-Messianic  explanations  of  Ps.  110  are 
liie  masterpiece  of  rationalistic  arbitrariness.  They  begin  by  giving  to  "T)"]^ 
the  meaning  :  "addressed  to  David,"  instead  of  "composed  by  David,"  contiaiy 
to  the  uniform  sense  of  the  7  auctoris  in  the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  and  that  to  make 
David  the  subject  of  the  Psalm,  which  would  be  impossible  if  he  were  its  author 
(Ewald).  And  as  this  interpretation  turns  out  to  be  untenable,  for  David  never  wus 
a  priest  (ver.  4  :  "  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever"),  they  transfer  the  composition  of  the 
Psalm  to  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  and  suppose  it  addressed  by  some  autiior  or 
other  to  Jonathan,  the  brother  of  Judas  Maccabeus,  of  the  priestl}^  race.  This  per- 
son, who  never  even  bore  the  title  of  king,  is  the  man  whom  an  unknown  flatterer  is 
supposed,  according  to  Hilzig,  to  celebrate  as  seated  at  Jehovah's  right  hand  !  It  is 
impossible  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  contents  of  the  Psalm  without  recognizing  its  di- 
rectly 3Iessianic  bearing  :  1.  A  Lord  of  David  ;  2.  Raised  to  Jehovah's  Ihione,  that 
is  to  say,  to  participation  in  omnipotence  ;  3.  Setting  out  from  Zion  on  the  conquest 
of  the  world,  overthrowing  the  kings  of  the  earth  (ver.  4),  judging  the  nations  (ver.  5), 
and  that  by  means  of  an  army  of  priests  clothed  in  their  sacerdotal  garments  (ver.  3)  ; 
4.  Himself  at  once  a  priest  and  a  king,  like  Melchisedcc  before  Him.  The  law,  by 
placing  the  kinglj'  power  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  the  priesthood  in  that  of  Le\i, 
had  raised  an  insnrmouDtable  barrier  between  those  two  offices.  This  separation 
David  must  often  have  felt  with  pain.  Uzziah  attempted  to  do  away  with  it  ;  but  he 
was  immediately  visited  with  punishment.  It  was  reserved  for  the  Messiah  alone,  at 
the  close  of  the  theocracy,  to  reproduce  the  sublime  type  of  the  King-Priest,  pre- 
sented at  the  date  of  its  origin  in  the  person  of  Melchisedcc.  Comp.  on  the  future 
reunion  of  those  two  offices  in  the  Messiah,  the  wonderful  prophecy  of  Zecli.  G  :  9-1"). 
Ps.  110,  besides  its  evidently  prophetic  bearing,  possesses  otherwise  all  the  chaiac- 
teristics  of  David's  compositions  :  a  conciseness  which  is  forcible  and  obscure  ;  brill- 
iancy and  freshness  in  the  images  ;  grandeur  and  richness  of  intuition.  It  was  from 
the  words  :  Sit  thou  at  my  nghl  hand,  that  Jesus  took  His  answer  to  the  adjuration 
of  the  high  priest  in  the  judgment  scene  (Matt.  2G  :  G4)  :  "  Henceforth  .shall  ye  see  the 
Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power."  With  what  a  look  of  severity, 
turned  upon  His  adversaries  at  the  verj^  moment  when  He  quoted  this  Psalm  before 
all  the  people,  must  He  have  accompanied  this  declaration  of  Jehovah  to  the  Messiah  : 
"  until  I  make  Thine  eneoiies  Thy  footstool." 


440  COMMEXTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

To  answer  satisfactorily  the  question  of  ver.  44,  put  by  Jesus,  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  introduce  the  idea  of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  which  is  the  soul  of 
the  entire  Old  Testament.  Isaiah  called  the  Hon  born  to  us  :  Wonderful,  mighty  God 
(Lsa.  9  :  5).  Micah  had  distinguished  His  historic  birth  at  Bethlehem,  and  His  pre- 
iiistoric  birth  from  everlasting  (5:3).  Malachi  had  called  the  Messiah,  "  Adsuai 
coming  to  His  temple"  (3  :  1^.  There  was  in  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  from 
the  patriarchal  theophanies  down  to  the  latest  prophetic  visions,  a  constant  current 
toward  the  incarnation  as  the  goal  of  all  those  i-evelations.  The  appearance  of  the 
Messiah  presents  itself  more  and  more  cleai'ly  to  the  view  of  the  prophets  as  the  per- 
fect theophany,  the  fin;il  coming  of  Jehovah.  No  doubt,  since  the  exile,  exclusive 
zeal  for  monotheism  had  diverted  Jewish  theology  from  this  normal  direction.  This 
is  the  fact  which  Jesus  sets  before  its  representatives  in  that  so  profound  argument  of 
His,  John  10  :  34-38.  It  was  exactly  in  tiiis  way  that  Rabbinical  monotheism  had 
become  petrified  and  transformed  into  a  dead  theism.  Jesus  has  taken  up  the  broken 
thread  of  the  living  theology  of  the  prophets.  Such  is  the  explanation  of  His  present 
question.  To  resolve  it,  the  scribes  would  have  required  to  plunge  again  into  the 
fresh  current  of  the  ancient  theocratic  aspirations  :  The  descendant  promised  to  David 
(2  Sam.  7  :  16)  will  be  nothing  less  than  Adonai  coming  to  His  temple  (Mai.  3:1);  to 
His  human  birth  at  Bethlehem  there  corresponds  His  eternal  origm  in  God  (Mic.  5:2): 
shell  only  is  the  reconciliation  of  the  two  titles  son  and  Lord  of  David  given  to  the 
person  of  the  Messiah. 

The  meaning  and  appropriateness  of  .Jesus'  question  appear  to  us  equally  man- 
ifest.    It  has  been  sought,  however,  to  explain  it  otherwise. 

1.  Some  tiiink  that  Jesus  argue^,  from  the  fact  that  Messiah  is  to  be  David's 
Lord,  to  prove  that  He  cannot  he  his  descendant.  For  it  is  incongruous,  say  they, 
that  an  ancestor  should  call  his  descendant  his  Lord.  According  to  this  meaning  it 
must  be  admitted  that  Jesus  Himself  knew  very  well  that  He  did  not  descend  from 
David,  although  among  the  people  they  ignorantly  gave  Him  the  i'lWe  son  of  Daind, 
because  they  took  Him  for  the  Messiah.  The  Christians,  it  is  said,  yielded  at  a  later 
period  to  the  popular  .Jewish  instinct  ;  and  to  satisfy  it  inve7ited  the  two  genealogies 
which  seem  to  establish  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus  (Schenkel).  But,  («)  In  this 
case,  Jesus  would  have  acted,  as  Keim  observes,  in  a  manner  extremely  imprudent, 
by  Himself  raising  a  question  whicli  more  than  any  other  might  have  prejudiced  His 
standing  with  the  people.  "  The  character  son  of  Darid  could  not  be  wanting  to  Him 
who  thus  publicly  made  it  a  subject  of  discussion"'  (Keim).  {h)  It  would  not  only 
be  the  forgers,  the  authors  of  the  two  genealogical  documents  preserved  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  who  had  admitted  and  propagated  this  late  error  ;  it  would  also  mean  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse  (22  :  16  :  "I  am  the  root  and  offspring  of  David").  St. 
Paul  himself  would  be  guilty — he  who  should  least  of  all  have  been  inclined  to  make 
such  a  concession  to  the  Judaizing  party  (Rom.  1:3:  "of  the  seed  of  David  accord- 
ing to  the  liesh  ;"  2  Tim.  2  :  8  :  "  of  the  seed  of  David.")  The  whole  Church  must 
thus  have  connived  at  this  falsehood,  or  given  in  to  this  error,  and  that  despite  of  the 
express  protestation  of  Jesus  Himself  in  our  passage,  and  without  any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  our  Lord's  adversaries  to  show  up  the  error  or  falsehood  of  this  assertion  ! 
{c)  The  argument  thus  understood  would  prove  far  too  much  ;  the  rationalists  them- 
selves should  beware  of  ascribing  to  Jesus  so  gross  a  want  of  logic  as  it  would  imply. 
If  it  was  dishonoring  to  David  to  call  any  one  whatsoever  of  his  descendants  his 
Lord,  why  would  it  be  less  so  for  him  to  give  this  title  to  that  descendant  of  Abra- 
ham who  should  be  ihe  Messiah  ?  Was  not  the  family  of  David  the  noblest,  the  most 
illustrious  of  Israelitish  lamilies?  The  reasoning  of  Jesus  would  logically  end  in 
proving  that  the  Messiah  could  nit  bv'  an  Israelite,  or  even  a  man  !  (d)  Jesus  would 
thus  have  put  Himself  in  contradiction  to  the  whole  Old  Testament  which  represent- 
ed the  Christ  as  being  burn  of  the  family  of  David  (2  Sam.  7  ;  Ps.  132  :  17  ;  lsa. 
!)  :5,  6).  (e)  Luke  would  also  l)e  in  contradiction  with  himself,  for  he  expressly  makes 


ciiAi'.    xx.  :  41-44.  441 

Jesns  dei?cend  from  David  (1  :  32.  (ilt).  (/)  How,  finally,  conld  Jesus  have  coulented 
Hinii^elf  with  prou-stiiii;  so  indiieclly  :ii:;aiiist  lliis  ailiibule  sjii  of  Duvid  ascribed  to 
iliin  liy  tlie  nudlituiie,  if  lie  liad  known  that  He  diil  not.  possess  il  ? 

'2.  A(X'(ii(linu- to  ]\I.  Colani  also,  .Jesns  means  Uial  Uie  Messiah  is  not  Um  xoit  of 
Btiiid,  hut  iu  this  |)urely  ninial  sense,  thai  He  is  not  the  heir  of  iiis  teiDporal  power  ; 
liiat  His  kingdom  is  of  a  higher  nature  than  David's  earthly  kingdom.  T3iit,  (a)  It  is 
^vho]ly  opposed  to  the  simple  and  rational  meaning  of  tiie  term  goii  of  Durid,  not  to 
)(  fer  it  to  sonship  properly  so  called,  hut  to  make  it  signify'  a  lempoial  king  like 
David,  {b)  It  woidd  he  necessary  to  atlinit  that  the  evangelist  did  not  himself  iindei- 
sland  the  meaning  of  this  sayinii',  or  that  he  contiadicts  himself — he -who  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  tlie  angel  the  declaiation.  1  :  ;53  :  "  The  Loid  shall  give  unto  Him  tiie 
throne  of  Jlii^fiit/ur  David"  (comp.  ver.  (V.i). 

3.  Keim  admits  the  natural  meaning  of  the  term  Son.  He  places  the  notion  of 
spiritual  kingship  not  in  liusteim.  hut  iu  that  of  Dncid'fi  Lord.  "The  physical 
descent  of  .lesus  from  David  is  of  no  moment  ;  His  kingdom  is  not  a  lepeiition  of 
David's.  From  the  bosom  of  the  heavenly  glory  to  whieh  He  is  niised,  He  beslows 
spiritual  blessings  on  men.  None,  tiierefore,  should  lake  olfeuce  at  His  present 
poverty."  But,  {ti)  If  that  is  the  whole  problem,  the  problem  vanishes  ;  for  there  is 
not  the  least  dillieulty  in  adndtling  that  a  descendant  may  be  laised  U)  a  height  sur- 
passing that  of  his  ancestor.  There  is  no  serious  dillicuify,  if  the  term  Lord  does  not 
include  the  uoliou  of  a  soiiMp  superior  to  that  wiiicli  is'  implied  iu  the  title  son  of 
D(uid.  (b)  So  thoroughly  is  this  our  Lord's  view,  that  in  ^laik  the  question  put  by 
Hun  stands  thus:  "David  calls  Him  his  Lord;  ho/n,  then,  is  He  his  son?''  In 
Keim's  sense,  Jesus  should  have  said  :  "  David  calls  Him  his  son  ;  hoio,  then,  is  He 
his  Lord?"  In  the  form  of  .Matthew  (the  Gospel  to  which  Keim  uniformly  gives  the 
preference,  and  to  which  alone  he  ascribes  any  real  value),  the  true  point  of  the  ques- 
tion is  still  more  clearly  put  :  "  Who.se  son  is'fle  ?"  The  proi)lem  is  evidently,  there- 
fore. Ihe  Ha vidic  sonship  of  Jesus,  as  an  undeniable  fact,  and  j-el  apparently  contra- 
dictory to  another  sonship  implied  in  the  term  David's  Lord.  Finally,  (r)  U  it  was 
merely  the  spiritual  natuie  of  His  kingdom  which  Jesus  meant  to  leach,  as  Colani 
and  Keim  allege  in  their  two  different  interpretations,  there  were  many  simpler  and 
clearer  ways  of  doing  so,  than  the  ambiguous  and  complicated  method  which  on 
their  supposition  He  must  have  employed  here.  The  question  put  by  Jesus  would 
be  nothing  but  a  play  of  wit,  unworthy  of  Himself  and  of  the  solemnity  of  the  occa- 
sion. 

4.  According  to  Volkmar,  this  whole  piece  is  a  pure  invention  of  IMark,  the  prim- 
itive evangelist,  who,  by  putting  this  question  in  the  mouth  of  Jesns.  skilfully 
answered  this  Rabbinical  objection  :  Jesus  did  not  present  Himself  to  the  world 
either  as  David's  deseendaiit  or  as  His  glorious  successor  ;  consequenti}' He  cannot 
be  the  Messiah,  for  the  O.  T.  makes  Messiah  the  son  of  David.  yUuk  answered  l)y 
Ihe  mouth  of  Jesus  :  No  ;  it  is  impossible  that  the  O.  T.  could  have  meant  to  make 
jNlessiah  the  son  of  David,  for  according  to  Ps.  110  the  Messiah  was  to  be  his  Lord. 
But,  (a)  It  would  follow  therefrom,  as  Volkmar  acknowlerlges,  that  in  the  time  of 
Jesus  none  had  regarded  Him  as  the  liescendant  of  David.  Now  the  acclamations  of 
the  multitude  on  the  day  of  Palms,  the  address  of  the  woman  of  Canaan,  that  of 
Baitimeus,  and  all  the  other  like  passages,  prove  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Davidic 
sonship  of  Jesus  was  a  generally  admitted  fact,  (h)  How  was' it  that  Ihesciibes 
never  protested  against  the  Messianic  pretensions  of  Jesus,  especially  on  the  occasion 
of  His  trial  before  the  Sanhedrim,  if  His  attitude  son  of  David  had  not  been  a  notori- 
ous fact?  (c)  The  Davidic  descent  of  the  family  of  Jesus  was  so  well  known  that 
the  Emperor  Dimmit iau  summoned  the  nephews  of  Jesus,  the  sons  of  Jude  His 
biother,  to  Rome,  under  the  designatiun  of  sons  of  David.  {(I)  St.  Paul,  in  the  year 
59,  positively  leaches  the  Davidii;  descent  of  Jesus  (Rom.  1  :  3).  And  Mark,  the 
/•*a?//i/?^  (according  to  Volkmar),  denied  to  Jesus  tiiis  same  sonsliip  in  73  (the  date, 
according  to  Volkmar,  of  .Mark's  composition),  by  a  reasonimr  ad  hoc  /  Still  more, 
Luke  him-self,  that  Paidine  of  the  purest  water,  reproduces  ^fark's  express  denial, 
withovit  troubling  himself  about  tlie  positive  teaching  of  Paul!  Volkmar  attemjits 
to  elude  the  force  of  this  argument  by  maintaining  that  Paul's  saying  in  the  Epi.-lle 
to  the  Romans  is  only  a  concession  made  by  him  to  the  Judeo-Chrisllau  party  !  To 
the  objection  taken  from  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  (Luke  3  :  23,  et  seq.),  Volkmar  auda- 


442  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

ciously  replies  that  Luke  mentions  it  only  to  set  it  aside  ("  um  sie  zu  illudiren'").  And 
yet  this  same  Luke,  as  we  have  seen,  expressly  asserts  tliis  sonship  (1  :  33  and  69). 
\e)  Let  us  add  a  last  discover}''  of  Yolkinar's  :  Matthew  found  it  useful,  in  the  interest 
of  the  Judeo-Cliristiau  party,  to  accept  in  s[»ite  of  Mark  the  idea  of  the  Davidic 
descent  of  Jesus  as  he  found  it  contained  in  Luke  (in  that  genealogical  document 
wliich  Luke  had  quoted  only  to  set  aside)  !  Only,  to  glorify  Jesus  the  more,  he 
sul.isliluted  rt^  hia  owtihnnd.  for  the  obscure  branch  of  Nathan  (Luke's  genealogy), 
the  roytd'aud  much  more  glorious  line  of  Solomon  (Matthew's). 

Thus  our  sacred  writers  manipulate  history  to  suit  their  interest  or  caprice  ! 
Instead  of  the  artless  simplicity  which  moves  us  in  their  writings,  we  find  in  them 
device  opposed  to  device  and  falsehood  to  falsehood  !  Be  it  ours  to  stand  aloof 
from  such  saturnalia  of  criticism  ! 

Our  interpretation,  the  only  natural  one  in  the  context,  is  confirmed  :  (1)  By  those 
expressions  in  the  Apocalypse  :  the  root  and  offspring  of  David — expressions  wliich 
correspond  to  those  of  Lord  and  son  of  this  king  ;  (2)  by  Paul's  twofold  declaiatiou, 
'*  mnde  of  tJte  Heed  of  D(iml  according  to  the  flesh  [David's  srm],  and  declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  witii  ])Ower  since  His  resurrection,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness 
[David's  Lord]  ;"  (o)  by  the  silence  of  Jesus  at  the  time  of  His  condemnation.  This 
question,  put  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people  to  the  conscience  of  His  judges,  had 
answeied  beforehand  the  accusation  of  blasphemy  raised  against  Him.  Such  was 
the  practical  end  which  Jesus  had  in  view,  when  with  this  question  He  dosed  this 
decisive  passage  of  arms. 

7.  The  Warning  against  the  Scribes:  20  :  45-47.— Vers.  45-47.*  On  the  field  of 
battle  where  the  scribes  have  just  been  beaten,  Jesus  judges  them.  This  short  dis- 
course, like  its  parallel  Mark  12  :  38-40,  is  the  summary  of  the  great  discourse  Matt. 
23,  wherein  Jesus  pronounced  His  woe  on  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  which  may 
be  called  the  judgment  of  the  theocratic  authorities.  It  is  the  prelude  to  the  great 
eschatological  discourse  which  follows  (the  judgment  of  Jerusalem,  of  the  Church, 
and  of  the  woild.  Matt.  24  and  25).  In  the  discourse  Matt.  23,  two  different  dis- 
courses are  combined,  of  which  the  one  is  transmitted  to  us  by  Luke  (11  :  37  et  seq.), 
in  a  context  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired,  and  the  other  was  really  uttered  at 
the  time  where  we  find  it  placed  in  the  first  Gospel.  We  have  only  an  abridgment 
in  Mark  and  Luke,  either  because  it  was  found  in  this  form  in  the  documents  from 
which  they  drew,  or  because,  writing  for  Gentile  readers,  they  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  transmit  it  to  them  in  whole.  QeAovtuv  :  who  take  their  pleasure  in.  There  are 
two  ways  of  explaining  the  spoliations  referred  to  in  the  words  :  devovring  widows' 
Jiouses.  Either  they  extorted  considerable  presents  from  pious  women,  under  pretext 
of  interceding  for  them — this  sense  would  best  agree  with  the  sequel,  especially  with 
the  reading  npoaEvxouEvoi ;  or  what  is  more  natural  and  piquant,  by  the  ambiguity  of 
the  word  eat  up,  Jesus  alludes  to  the  sumptuous  feasts  provided  for  them  bj'  those 
women,  while  they  filled  the  office  of  directors  of  the  conscience  ;  in  both  senses  : 
the  Tarluffes  of  the  period.  The  word  -npocpafTci,  strictly  pretext,  signifies  secondavih^ 
shoiD.  The  words  greater  damnation,  include  in  an  abridged  form  all  the  oiai,  icoes! 
of  Matthew. 

8.  The  Widoio's  Alms :  21  :  1-4. — Vers.  l-4.f  This  piece  is  wanting  in  Matthew. 
"Why  would  he  have  rejected  it,  if,  according  to  Holtzmann's  view,  he  had  before 
him  the  document  from  which  the  other  two  have  taken  it  ?    A(!Cording  to  Mark 

*  Ver.  45.  B.  D.  omit  avrov  after  fiaOriraii.  Ver.  47.  D.  P.  R.  some  Mnn.  Syr. 
J^pierique^  Vg.,  n pon evxouEVOi  iustead  of  npoaEvxovrai. 

f  Ver  2.  9  Mjj.  several  ]\Inn.,  nva  koc  instead  of  Kai  -na.  9  INIjj.  several  Mnn. 
omit  Kai.      Ver.  4.  !!*.  B.  L.  X.  4  Mnn.  Syr*^""".  omit  tov  Qeov  after  <)upa. 


CHAP.   XX.  :  45-47  ;  xxi.  :  1-5.  443 

(13  :  41^4),  Jesus,  probably  worn  out  with  the  preceding  scene,  sat  down.  In  the 
ccurt  of  the  women  there  were  placed,  according  to  the  Talrnud  (tr.  Schekalim,  vi. 
1,  5,  18),  thirteen  coffers  with  horn-shaped  orifices  ;  whence  their  name  rT'^ClI'* 
They  were  called  }a,'ooi'A.«K(n,  treasuries.  This  name  in  the  sing,  designated  the 
locality  as  a  whole  where  those  coft'ers  stood  (John  8  :  20)  ;  Josephus,  Aniici.  xix.  6.1). 
This  is  perhaps  the  meaning  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  Maik  (5:41):  orei' 
against  the  treasury  ;  in  Luke  it  is  applied  to  the  coffers  themselves.  Ae-rjv,  mile  : 
the  smallest  coin,  probably  the  eighih  part  of  the  as,  which  was  worth  from  six  to 
eight  centimes  (fiom  u  halfpenny  to  three  farthings).  Two  ?.eiTTd,  therefore,  corre- 
spond nearly  to  two  centime  pieces.  Bengel  tinely  remarks  on  the  tico :  "  one  of 
Avhich  she  might  have  retained."  Mark  translates  this  expression  into  Roman 
money  :  "  whicii  make  a  farthing" — a  slight  detail  unknown  to  Luke,  and  fitted  to 
throw  light  on  the  question  where  the  second  Gospel  was  composed.  In  the  sayings 
which  Jesus  addresses  to  His  disciples,  His  object  is  to  lead  their  minds  to  the  true 
appreciation  of  human  actions  according  to  their  quality,  in  opposition  to  the  quan- 
lilative  appreciation  which  forms  the  essence  of  Pharisaism.  Such  is  the  meaning  of 
tile  word  :  slie  liath  cast  in  more  ;  in  reality,  with  those  two  mites  she  had  cast  in  her 
heart.  The  proof  {yap,  ver.  4)  is  given  in  what  follows  :  she  hath  cast  in  of  her  penni-y 
all  that  she  had.  'Yareprjfia,  deficiency,  denotes  what  the  woman  liad  as  insufficient  for 
her  maintenance.  "  And  of  that  too  little,  of  that  possession  which  in  itself  is  already 
a  delicieucy,  she  has  kept  nothing."  The  word  voTtpnaii  iu  Mark  denotes  not  what 
the  woman  had  as  insufficient  (vaTeprjua),  but  her  entire  condition,  as  a  state  of  con- 
tinued penury.  What  a  contrast  to  the  avarice  for  which  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
are  upbraided  in  the  preceding  piece  !  This  incident,  witnessed  by  Jesus  at  such  a 
time,  resembles  a  flower  which  He  comes  upon  all  at  once  in  the  desert  of  official 
devotion,  the  sight  and  perfume  of  which  make  Him  leap  with  joy.  Such  an 
example  is  the  jusliticati(m  of  the  beatitudes,  Luke  6,  as  the  preceding  discourse 
jusliiies  the  ovai,  woes,  in  the  same  passage. 

THIRD      CYCLE.— CHAP.    21:5-38. 

TJie  Pi'ophecy  of  the  Destiniciion  of  Jei'usalem. 

This  piece  contains  n  question  put  by  the  disciples  (vers.  5-7),  the  discourse  of 
Jfsus  in  answer  to  their  question  (vers.  8-36),  and  a  general  view  of  the  last  days 
(vers.  37,  38). 

1.  The  Question:  vers.  5-7.*— To  the  preceding  declaration,  some  of  the  hearers 
might  have  objected,  that  if  only  such  gifts  as  the  Avidow's  had  been  made  iu  that 
holy  place,  those  magnificent  structures  and  those  rich  offerings  would  not  have 
existed.  It  was  doubtless  some  such  reflection  which  gave  lise  to  the  following  con- 
versation. This  conversation  took  place,  according  to  Matthew  24  :  1  and  ]Maik 
13  :  1,  as  .lesus  left  the  ttmple,  and  on  occasion  of  an  observation  made  by  His  dis- 
ciples (Matthew),  or  by  o)ie  of  them  (Mark).  According  to  IMatthew,  this  observation 
was  certainly  connected  with  the  last  words  of  the  previous  discourse  (not  related  by- 
Mark  and  Luke),  23  :  38  :  "  Your  house  is  left  unto  you  [desolate]."     How  can  it  be 

*  Ver.  5.  ».  A.  D.  X.,  avaee/iamr  instead  of  ma^ij/jami:  Ver.  6.  D.  L.  ItP'"'l", 
omit  a  after  ravra.   ^  B.  L.  some  Mun.  add  wrJt   after  ?udij  or  /u6ov. 


444  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

asserted  tliat  three  evauselists,  copying  the  same  documeut,  or  copying  from  one 
uuuLher,  could  differ  in  such  a  way  '? 

In  tlie  answer  of  Jesus  (ver.  G;,  die  words,  ravra  u  Qeupelre,  these  things  ichich  ye  be- 
hold, may  be  taken  interrogatively  :  "  These  are  the  things,  are  they,  which  ye  are 
beholding?"  Or  we  may  take  them  as  in  apposition  to  aZ&oS,  and  the  subject  of 
iKfeOijaETcu,  which  is  more  categorical  and  solemn  :  "  As  to  these  things  which  ye  be- 
hold .  .  .  there  shall  not  be  left  one  stone  upon  another. "  It  was  evening  (Luke 
5  :  o7).  at  the  moment  perhaps  when  the  setting  sun  was  casting  his  last  rays  on  the 
sacred  edifice  and  the  holy  city.  Several  critics  think  that  Luke  places  this  discourse 
also  in  the  temple.  But  this  opinion  does  not  agree  eitlier  with  vers.  5  and  6,  where 
the  temple  buildings  are  contemplated  by  the  interlocutors,  which  supposes  them  to 
be  at  some  distance  from  which  they  can  view  them  as  a  whole,  or  with  ver.  7,  which 
conveys  the  notion  of  a  private  conversation  between  tlie  disciples  and  the  Master. 
According  to  iMark  (13  :  8),  Jesus  was  seated  with  I'eter,  James,  John,  and  Andrew, 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  over  against  that  wonderful  scene.  Here  is  one  of  those  de- 
tails in  which  we  recounize  the  recital  of  an  eye-witness,  probably  Peter.  Mattliew, 
while  indicating  the  situation  in  a  way  similar  to  Mark,  does  not,  any  more  than 
Luke,  name  the  four  disciples  present.  Luke  and  Matthew  would  certainly  not  have 
omitted  such  a  circiunstance,  if  they  had  copied  Mark  ;  as,  on  the  contrary,  Mark 
would  not  have  added  it  at  bis  own  hand,  if  he  had  compiled  from  the  text  of  the 
other  two. 

The  form  of  the  disciples'  question,  ver.  7,  differs  in  Luke  and  ]\Iark,  but  tlie  sense 
is  the  same  :  tlie  question  in  both  refers  simply  to  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the 
temple,  and  to  the  sign  by  which  it  siiall  be  announced.  It  is,  no  doubt,  possible  the 
disciples  more  or  less  confounded  this  catastrophe  with  the  event  of  the  Parousia  ;  bi;t 
the  text  does  not  say  so.  It  is  quite  otherwise  in  Matthew  ;  according  to  him,  the 
question  bears  expressly  on  those  two  points  combined  :  tlie  time  of  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  and  the  sign  of  the  coming  of  Christ.  Luke  and  Matthew  each  give 
the  following  discourse  in  a  manner  which  is  in  keeping  with  their  mode  of  express- 
ing the  question  which  gives  rise  to  it.  In  Luke,  this  discourse  contemplates  exclu- 
sively the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  If  mention  is  made  of  the  end  of  tlie  woild  (vers. 
25-27),  it  is  only  in  passing,  and  as  the  result  of  an  association  of  ideas  which  will  be 
easily  explained.  The  Parousia  in  itself  had  been  previously  treated  of  by  Luke  in 
a  special  discourse  called  forth  by  a  question  of  the  Pharisees  (chap.  17).  On  his 
side,  Matthew  combines  in  the  following  discourse  the  two  subjects  indicated  in  the 
question,  as  he  has  expressed  it  ;  and  he  unites  them  in  so  intimate  a  way,  that  all 
attempts  to  separate  them  in  the  text,  from  Chrysostom  to  Ebrard  and  Meyer,  have 
broken  down.  Comp.  vers.  14  and  22,  which  can  refer  to  nothing  but  the  Parousia, 
while  the  succeeding  and  preceding  context  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jprusalem  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  ver.  34,  which  points  to  this  latter  event,  while  all  that  pre- 
cedes and  follows  this  verse  applies  to  tlie  Parousia.  The  construction  attempted  by 
Gess  is  this  :  1.  From  vers.  4-14,  the  general  signs  preceding  the  Parousia,  that  be- 
lievers may  not  be  led  to  expect  this  event  too  soon  ;  2.  From  vers.  15-28,  tlie  de- 
struction of  the  temple  as  a  sign  to  be  joined  to  those  precursive  signs  ;  3.  Vers. 
29-31,  the  Parousia  itself.  But  {n)  this  general  order  is  far  from  natural.  What  has 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  to  do  after  the  passage  vers.  4-14,  Avliieh  (Gess  acknow!- 
crlges)  supposes  it  consummated  long  ago  ?  The  piece  (No.  2)  on  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  is  evidently  out  of  place  between  the  description  of  the  signs  of  the 


I  HAT.    \\i.  :  ('»-T.  44."} 

Paroiisia  (No.  1)  and  that  of  tlie  Paroiisia  itself  (No.  3).  (b)  This  division  cannot  be 
carried  out  into  detail  :  ver.  23,  which  Goss  is  obliged  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  can  apply  only  to  the  Parousia.  And  the  "  all  these  things"  of  ver.  34. 
which  he  restricts  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  first  preaching  of  the  gos- 
pel to  the  Gentiles,  as  first  signs  of  the  Parousia,  has  evidently  a  much  wider  scope 
in  the  evautrelist's  view.  It  must  therefore  be  admitted,  either  that  Jesus  Himself 
confounded  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  those  two 
events  formed,  in  His  judgment,  one  and  the  same  catastropiie,  or  tiiat  two  distinct 
discourses  uttered  by  Him  ou  two  different  occasions  appear  in  Matthew  united  in 
one.  Different  expedients  have  been  used  to  save  the  accuracy  of  Matthew's  account, 
•without  prejudice  to  the  Saviour's  infidlibility.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  de- 
scription of  tlie  Parousia,  Matt.  34,  refers  exclusively  to  the  invisible  return  of  Jesus 
to  destro\'  Jerusalem.  This  explanation  is  incompatible  with  the  text,  especially  vers. 
29-31.  It  has  also  been  alleged  that  in  the  prophetic  perspective  the  final  coming  of 
the  Messiah  appeared  to  the  view  of  Jesus  as  in  immediate  c.innection  with  His  re- 
turn to  judge  Israel.  But  {a)  this  hypothesis  docs  not  at  all  attain  the  end  which  its 
authors  propose,  that  of  saving  our  Lord's  infallibility,  {b)  Jesus  could  not  affirm 
liere  whut  He  elsewhere  declares  that  He  does  not  know  (Mark  13  :  32),  the  time  of 
the  Parousia.  Even  after  His  resurrection  He  still  refuses  to  give  an  answer  ou  this 
l)oint.  which  is  reserved  by  the  Father  in  His  own  power  (Acts  1  :  6,  7).  (c)  We  can 
go  fmtiier,  and  show  that  Jesus  had  a  quite  opposite  view  to  that  of  the  nearness  of 
llis  return.  While  He  announces  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  an  event  to  be  wit- 
nessed by  the  contemporary  generation.  He  speaks  of  the  Parousia  as  one  which  is 
possibly  yet  very  remote.  Consider  the  expression,  EAevaovTcu  iifiipai,  days  tcUl  come 
(Luke  17  :  22).  and  the  parable  of  the  widow,  the  meaning  of  which  is,  that  God  will 
seem  to  the  Church  an  uujust  judge,  who  for  a  protracted  time  refuses  to  liear  her, 
so  that  during  this  time  of  waiting  the  faith  of  many  shall  give  way  (18  : 1  et  seq.) 
The  Master  is  to  return  ;  but  perhaps  it  will  nut  be  till  the  second,  or  the  third 
watch,  or  even  till  the  morning,  that  He  will  come  (Mark  13  :  35  ;  Luke  13  :  38). 
Tiie  great  distance  at  which  the  capital  lies  (Luke  10  :  12)  can  signify  nothing  else 
th:m  the  considerable  space  of  time  which  will  elapsrC  between  the  departure  of  Jesiis 
and  His  return.  In  Matt.  25  :  5  the  bridegroom  tarries  much  longer  than  the  bridal 
procession  expected  ;  24:48,  the  unfaithful  servant  strengthens  liimself  in  his  evil- 
doing  by  the  reflection  that  his  Lord  delayeth  His  coming.  Malt.  24  :  14,  the  gospel 
is  to  be  preached  in  all  the  world  and  to  all  the  Gentiles  (Mark  16  :  15,  to  every 
creature)  :  and  Matt.  26  :  13,  Mary's  act  is  to  be  published  in  the  whole  world  before 
Jesus  shall  return.  In  fine,  the  gospel  shall  transform  humanity  not  by  a  magical 
process,  but  by  slow  and  profound  working,  like  that  of  leaven  in  dough.  The  king- 
dom of  God  will  grow  on  the  earth  like  a  tree  which  proceeds  from  an  impercejitible 
seed,  and  which  serves  in  its  maturity  to  shelter  the  birds  of  heaven.  And  Jesus, 
who  knew  human  nature  so  deeply,  could  have  imagined  that  such  a  work  could  have 
been  accomplished  in  less  than  forty  years!  Who  can  admit  it?  The  confusion 
which  prevails  in  this  whole  discouise,  Matt.  24  (as  well  as  in  Mark  13),  and  wiiich 
distinguishes  it  from  the  two  distinct  discourses  of  Luke,  nuist  therefore  be  ascribed 
not  to  Jesus,  but  to  the  account  which  Matthew  used  as  the  basis  of  his  recital. 

This  confusion  in  Matthew  is  probably  closely  connected  with  the  Judeo-Chiistian 
point  of  view,  under  the  sway  of  which  primitive  tradition  took  its  form.  In  the 
prophets,  the  drama  of  the  last  days,  which  closes  theeschatological  perspective,  em- 


446  COMMEISTTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

braces  as  two  events  nearly  following  one  another,  the  judgment  whereby  Israel  is 
purified  by  means  of  tlie  Gentiles,  and  the  punishment  of  tlie  Gentiles  by  Jehovah. 
Preoccupied  with  this  view,  the  hearers  of  Jesus  easily  ovei looked  in  His  discourses 
certain  transitions  which  reserved  the  interval  betweeu  those  two  events  usually  com- 
bined in  the  O.  T.  ;  and  that  so  much  the  more,  as,  on  looking  at  it  closely,  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  is  really  the  tirst  act  of  the  world's  judgment  and  of  the  end 
of  the  days.  The  harvest  of  an  early  tree  announces  aad  inaugurates  the  general 
harvest ;  so  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem  is  the  prelude  and  even  the  first  act  of  the 
judgment  of  humanity.  *rhe  Jew  has  priority  in  judgment,  because  he  had  priority 
cf  grace  (conip.  the  two  corresponding  npuTov,  Rom.  2  .  9,  10).  With  the  judgment 
on  Jerusalem,  the  hour  of  the  world's  judgment  has  really  struck.  The  present  epoch 
is  due  to  a  suspension  of  the  judgment  already  begun — a  suspension  the  aim  of  which 
is  to  make  way  for  the  time  of  grace  which  is  to  be  granted  to  the  Gentiles  {naipol 
iQvo)v,  the  times  of  the  Oentilea).  The  close  combination  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem witli  the  end  of  the  world  in  Matthew,  though  containing  an  error  in  a  chrono- 
logical point  of  view,  rests  on  a  moral  idea  which  is  profoundly  true. 

Thus  everything  authorizes  us  to  give  the  preference  to  Luke's  account.  1.  Mat- 
thew's constant  habit  of  grouping  together  in  one,  materials  belonging  to  different  dis- 
courses ;  2.  The  precise  historical  situation  which  gave  rise  to  the  special  discourse  of 
chap.  17  on  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  which  cannot  be  an  invention  of  Luke  ;  3.  The 
established  fact,  that  the  confusion  which  marks  the  discourseof  Matthew  was  foreign 
to  the  mind  of  Jesus  ;  4.  Finally,  we  have  a  positive  witness  to  the  accuracy  of  Luke  ; 
that  is  Mark.  For  though  his  great  eschatological  discourse  (chap.  13)  presents  the 
same  confusion  as  that  of  Matthew  in  the  question  of  the  disciples  Avhich  calls  it 
forth,  it  is  completely  at  one  with  Luke,  and,  like  him,  mentions  only  one  subject, 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Might  ]\Iark  have  taken  the  form  of  his  question  from  Luke,  and  that  of  the  dis- 
course from  Matthew,  as  Bleek  alleges  ?  But  the  incongruity  to  which  such  a  course 
would  have  je.l  would  be  unworthy  of  a  serious  writer.  Besides,  the  form  of  the 
question  is  not  the  same  iu  Mark  as  in  Luke.  Finally,  the  original  details  which  we 
have  pointed  out  in  Mark,  as  well  as  those  special  and  precise  details  with  which  his 
narrative  abounds  from  the  day  of  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  onwaid,  do  not  admit  of 
tbis  supposition.  No  more  can  Luke  have  taken  his  question  from  Mark.  He  would 
have  borrowed  at  the  same  time  the  details  peculiar  to  Mark  which  he  wants,  and  the 
form  of  the  question  is  too  well  adapted  in  his  Gospel  to  the  contents  of  the  discourse 
to  admit  of  this  supposition.  It  must  therefore  be  concluded,  that  if  in  the  compila- 
tion of  tlie  discourse  Mark  came  under  the  influence  of  the  tradition  to  which  Mat- 
thew's form  is  due,  the  form  of  the  question  in  his  Gospel  nevertheless  remains  as  a 
very  sti iking  trace  of  the  accuracy  of  Luke's  account.  The  form  of  the  question  in 
Matthew  must  have  been  modified  to  suit  the  contents  of  the  discourse  ;  and  thus  it 
is  that  it  has  lost  its  original  unity  and  precision,  which  are  preserved  in  the  other  two 
evangelists. 

2.  The  Discourse :  vers.  8-36. — The  four  points  treated  by  Jesus  are  :  Ist.  The 
apparent  signs,  which  must  not  be  mistaken  for  true  signs  (vers.  8-19) ;  2c?.  The  true 
sign,  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  which  will  immediately  follow  it,  with  the 
time  of  the  Gentiles  which  will  be  connected  with  it  (vers.  20-24)  ;  M.  The  Parnusia, 
which  will  bring  this  period  to  an  end  (vers.  25-27)  ;  iih.  The  practical  application 
(vers.  28-36). 


ciiAi'.    x.\i.  :  8-11).  447 

Vers.  8-19.*  The  Signs  irhich  are  not  such. — "  But  He  sjiid,  Take  heed  that  j'c  be 
not  deceived  ;  fur  many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying,  1  am  he,  and  the  time  draw- 
eth  near.  Go  ye  nut  therefore  after  them.  9.  And  when  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and 
commotions,  be  not  territied  ;  for  these  things  must  tirst  come  to  pass  ;  but  the  end 
conieth  not  so  speedily.  10.  Then  said  He  unto  them.  Nation  shall  rise  against 
nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom.  11.  And  great  cartluiuakes  shall  be  in  divers 
places,  and  famines,  and  pestilences,  as  well  as  great  and  terrible  signs  from  heaven. 
12.  But  above  all,  they  shall  lay  their  hands  on  you,  and  persecute  you,  delivering 
you  up  to  the  synagogues,  and  into  prisons,  bringing  you  before  kings  and  rulers  for 
my  name's  sake.  Vo.  But  it  shall  turn  to  j'ou  for  a  testimony.  14.  Settle  it,  there- 
fore, in  your  hearts,  not  to  meditate  before  what  j'e  shall  answer.  15.  Fori  will  give 
you  -A  mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all  j'our  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to  gainsay  nor 
resist.  16.  And  ya  shall  be  betrayed  even  by  parents,  and  brethren,  and  kinsfolks,  and 
friends  ;  and  some  of  you  shall  they  cause  to  be  put  to  death  ;  17.  And  ya  shall  be  hated 
of  all  for  my  name's  sake  ;  18.  And  there  shall  not  an  hair  of  your  head  perish.  19. 
In  your  patience  save  ye  your  lives."  The  sign  to  which  the  question  of  the  apostle 
refers  is  not  indicated  till  vor.  20.  The  signs  vers.  8-19  are  enumerated  solel}'  to  put 
believers  on  their  guard  against  the  decisive  value  which  they  might  be  led  to  ascribe 
to  them.  The  vulgar  are  inclined  to  look  on  certain  extraordinary  events  in  nature 
or  society  as  the  evidences  of  some  approaching  catastrophe.  ]\Iauy  events  of  this 
kind  will  happen,  Jesus  means  to  say,  but  without  your  being  warranted  yet  to  con- 
clude that  the  great  event  is  near,  and  so  to  take  measures  precipitately.  The  seduc- 
tion of  which  ^Matthew  and  Mark  speak  is  that  which  shall  be  practiced  by  the  false 
Messiahs.  The  meaning  is  probably  the  same  in  Luke  (}«/')•  Historj-,  it  is  true,  does 
not  attest  the  presence  of  false  Messiahs  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And 
those  who  are  most  embarrassed  by  this  fact  are  just  our  modern  critics,  who  see  in 
this  discourse  nothing  but  a  prophecy  ab  eventu.  They  suppose  that  the  author 
alludes  to  such  men  as  Judas  the  Galilean,  the  Egyptian  (Acts  21),  Theudas,  and 
others,  prudentl)'  described  b}'  Josephus  as  mere  heads  of  parties,  but  who  really  put 
forth  ^lessianic  pretensions.  This  assertion  is  hard  to  prove.  For  our  part,  who  see  in 
this  discourse  a  real  prophecy,  we  think  that  Jesus  meant  to  put  believers  on  their 
guard  against  false  teachers,  such  as  Simon  the  magician,  of  whom  there  ma}^  have 
been  a  great  number  at  this  period,  though  he  is  the  only  one  of  whom  profane  his- 
tory speaks.  The  /jltj  Tzroridijvai,  not  to  let  themselves  be  terrified  (ver.  9),  refers  to  the 
temptation  to  a  premature  emigration.  Conip.  the  opposite  ver.  21.  Further,  it 
must  not  be  concluded  from  the  political  convulsions  which  shall  shake  the  East  that 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  now  near. 

Jesus  had  uttered  in  substance  His  whole  thought  in  those  few  words  ;  and  He 
m'ght  have  passed  immediately  to  the  conliast  orav  6e,  but  when  (ver.  20).  Yet  He 
develops  the  same  idea  more  at  length,  vers.  10-19  Hence  the  words  in  which  Luke 
expressly  resumes  his  report  •  Then  said  he  vnto  them  (ver.  10).  This  passage,  vers. 
10-19,  might  therefore  have  been  luseited  here  by  Luke  as  a  fragment  borrowed  from 

*  Ver.  8.  ».  B.  D.  L.  X.  2  T^Inn.  Vss.  omit  ovv.  Ver.  11.  ».  B.  L.  place  xai  be- 
fore Mara  ronoi'i.  Ver.  12.  i^.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.,  anayoitevoDi  instead  of  ayofie- 
vovi.  Ver.  14.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  Of^^e  and  hEzs.  between  £??  rai  nap. 
Biai  (T.  R.)  and  tv  rati  Map^iaii  (Alex.).  Ver.  lo.  ii.  B.  L.  5  Mnn.,  ayri6r?fyai  rj 
arremeiv  instead  of  ayrencEiv  uude  avrtdrrfvai.  Ver.  18.  Marcinn  omitted  this 
verse.     Ver.  19.  A.  B.  some  Mnu.  Syr.  It.  Vg.,  7<T7]6E6Be  instead  of  nn/Cadhe. 


•i4S  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

a  separate  document  differing  from  the  source  whence  he  took  the  rest  of  the  dis- 
course. We  should  not  take  the  words  f/^eyev  avrolii  as  a  parenthetical  proposition, 
and  connect  tote  with  £y£()BrjaETai :  "  Then  said  He  unto  them,  One  nation  sliali  rise." 
According  to  the  analogy  of  Luke's  style,  we  should  rather  translate  :  "  Then  said 
He  unto  them,  One  nation  .  .  ."  When  to  great  political  commotions  there  are 
added  certain  physical  phenomena,  the  imagination  is  carried  away,  and  the  people 
become  prophets.  Jesus  puts  the  Church  of  Palestine  on  its  guard  against  this  ten- 
dency (ver.  11).  It  is  well  known  that  the  times  which  preceded  the  destrucliou  of 
Jerusalem  were  signalized  in  the  East  by  many  calamities,  particularly  by  a  dreadful 
famine  which  took  place  under  Claudms,  and  by  the  earthquake  which  destroyed 
Laodicea,  Hierapolis,  etc.,  in  G7  or  68.*  By  the  Hg  as  frovi  heavtn  we  are  toundejstand 
meteors,  auroras,  eclipses,  etc.,  phenomena  to  which  the  vulgar  readily  attach  a  pro- 
phetic significance. 

One  of  those  events  which  contribute  most  to  inflame  fanaticism  in  a  religious 
community  is  petsecution  ;  thus  are  connected  vers.  12  and  13.  Those  which  are 
auuouuced  will  ctrise  either  from  the  Jews  {synariogues),  like  that  marked  by  the 
martyrdoms  of  Stephen  and  James,  or  from  the  Gentiles  {kings  and  rulers),  like  that 
to  which  Paul  was  exposed  in  Palestine,  or  that  raised  by  jSTero  at  Home.  In  the 
phrase,  before  all  these,  the  Trpo  {before)  refers  to  the  impoitance  of  this  sign,  not  to  its 
time.  Meyer  denies  that  wpw  can  have  this  meaning  ;  but  Passow's  dictionary  cites  a 
host  of  examples  for  it.  It  is,  besides,  the  only  meaning  which  suits  the  context.  If 
TTpy  here  signifies  before,  vfhy  notspeakof  the  persecutions  before  the  preceding  signs? 
What  Jesus  means  by  this  word  is,  that  among  all  those  signs,  this  is  the  one  which 
might  most  easily  throw  His  disciples  out  of  the  calm  attitude  in  which  they  ought  to 
persevere.  We  have  translated  the  passive  ayofitvovz  by  the  active  {bringing).  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  render  the  passive  form  into  English.  Holtzmann  thinks  that  Luke 
here  traces  after  ihe  event,  though  in  the  form  of  prophecy,  the  picture  of  those 
persecutions  to  which  St.  Paul  was  exposed.  Can  we  suppose  an  evangelist,  to 
whom  Jesus  is  the  object  of  faith,  allowiughimself  deliberately  thus  to  put  words  into 
His  mouth  after  his  fancy  ?  Bleek  applies  the  word  testimony  (ver.  13)  to  that  which 
will  accrue  to  the  apostles  from  this  proof  of  their  fidelity.  It  is  more  natural,  hav- 
ing in  view  the  connection  with  vers.  14  and  15  {therefore,  ver.  14),  to  understand  by 
it  what  they  shall  themselves  render  on  occasion  of  their  persecution.  This  idea  falls 
back  again  into  the  Be  not  terrified :  "  All  that  will  only  end  in  giving  you  the  oppor- 
tunity of  glorifying  me  !"  It  is  the  same  with  vers.  14  and  15,  the  object  of  which 
is  to  inspire  them  with  the  most  entire  tranquillity  of  soul  in  the  carrying  out  of  their 
mission.  Jesus  charges  Himself  with  everything  :  tyu  ("iuau.  iwillgive.  The  mouth 
is  here  the  emblem  of  the  perfect  ease  with  which  they  shall  become  the  organs  of  the 
wisdom  of  Jesus,  without  the  least  preparation.  The  term  avTenrelf,  gainsay,  reieis 
to  the  fact  that  their  adversaries  shall  find  it  impossible  to  make  any  valid  reply  to 
the  defence  of  the  disciples  ;  the  word  resist,  to  the  powerlessness  to  answer  when  the 
disciples,  assuming  the  offensive,  shall  attack  them  with  the  sw^ord  of  the  gospel.  In 
the  Alex,  reading,  which  places  avriaTyvcu  first,  we  must  explain  ?)  in  the  sense  of  or 
even. 

To  official  persecution  there  shall  be  added  the  sufferings  of  domestic  enmity.  The 

*  "  The  Annals  of  Tacitus  and  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus  prove  famines,  earth- 
quakes, etc.,  in  the  times  of  Claudius  and  Nero  and  of  the  Jewish  war"  (Strauss, 
"  Leben  Jesu  fiir  d.  d.  Volk,"  p.  238). 


CMIAI'.    \\i.  :  -lO-'-H.  440 

name  of  Jesus  will  open  up  a  gulf  belweeu  them  and  their  nearest.  Vcr.  17  is  almost 
identical  with  Joim  15  :  21.  But  even  in  that  case  there  will  be  no  ground  for  dis- 
quiet. The  time  will  not  yet  have  come  for  them  to  quit  the  accursed  oil}'  and  land. 
Ver.  18  :  "  There  shall  not  an  hair  of  your  head  perish,"  seems  to  contradict  the 
close  of  ver.  IG  :  "some  of  you  shall  perish."  This  coutradictiun  is  explained  by 
the  general  point  of  view  from  which  we  explain  this  piece  :  There  shall,  indeed,  be 
some  individual  believers  who  shall  perish  in  the  persecution,  but  the  Christian  com- 
nmnity  of  Palestine  as  a  whole  shall  escape  the  extermiuation  which  will  overtake 
the  Jewish  people.  Their  condition  is  indicated  in  ver.  19,  where  this  piece  is 
resumed.  It  is  one  of  patience,  that  is  to  say,  peaceful  waiting  for  the  diviue  signal, 
without  being  draAvn  aside  either  by  the  appeals  of  a  false  patriotism  or  by  persecu- 
tion, or  by  false  signs  and  auti-Christiau  seductions.  The  fut.  KTrjaeaOe  in  A.  B.  is 
probably  a  correction  of  the  aor.  KTTJaaoQe  (T.  R.).  The  imper.  signifies  :  "  Embrace 
the  means  which  seem  the  way  to  lose  everything  .  .  .  and  ye  shall  save  your- 
selves." Kruodcu  does  not  mean  to  possess  (Ostervidd),  but  to  acquire.  The  word 
suggests  that  of  Jeiemiah,  7  ?c///  give  thee  thy  life  fur  a  prey.  Anil  now  at  length 
comes  the  contrast  :  the  lime  when  it  will  be  necessary  to  leave  the  passive  attitude 
for  that  of  aclion  {o-av  6i,  but  tchen,  ver.  20). 

Vers.  20-24.*  27ie  True  Sig?i,  and  the  Cntnstrophe. — "  But  when  ye  shall  see 
Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  then  know  that  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  21. 
Then  let  them  which  are  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains  ;  and  let  them  which  aie  in 
the  city  depart  out  ;  and  let  not  them  that  are  in  the  fields  enter  thereinto.  22.  For 
these  be  the  day's  of  vengeance,  that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled.  23. 
But  w'oe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck,  in  those  days  ; 
for  there  sliall  be  great  distress  in  the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  24.  And 
thej''  shall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away  captive  into  all 
nations  ;  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  Here  is  the  direct  answer  to  the  disciples'  question  :  "  When 
.  .  .  and  with  what  sign  ?"  Jesus  up  till  now  has  been  warning  believers  not  to 
give  way  to  hasty  measures.  Now  He  giuirds  them,  on  the  contrary,  against  the 
illusions  of  fanatical  Jews,  who  to  the  end  will  cherish  the  belief  that  God  will  not 
fail  to  save  Jerusalem  by  a  miracle.  "  By  no  means,  answers  Jesus  :  be  assured  in 
that  hour  that  all  is  over,  and  that  destruction  is  near  and  irrevocable."  The  sign 
indicated  by  Luke  is  the  investment  of  Jerusalem  by  a  hostile  army.  We  see  nothing 
to  hinder  us  from  legarding  this  sign  as  identical  in  sense  with  ti)at  announced  by 
Matthew  and  3Iark  in  Daniel's  words  (in  the  LXX.):  the  ahomination  of  deMdatioD, 
stiinding  in  the  holy  place.  Why  not  understand  thereby  the  Gentile  standards  planted 
on  the  sacred  soil  which  surrounds  the  holy  city  ?  Luke  has  substituted  for  llie 
obscure  prophetic  expression  a  term  more  intelligible  to  Gentiles.  It  has  often  beerj 
concluded  from  this  substitution,  that  Luke  had  modified  the  form  of  Jesus'  .'■aying 
under  the  influence  of  the  event  itself,  and  that  consequently  he  had  wrilten  alter  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  if  Jesus  really  predicted,  as  we  liave  no  doubt  He  did. 
the  taking  of  Jerusalem,  the  substitution  of  Luke's  term  for  the  synonym  of  Daniel 
might  have  been  made  befoi-e  the  event  as  easily  as  after.  Keim  sees  in  the  expression 
of  the  other  Syn.  the  announcemeut  of  a  simple  profanation  of  the  temple,  like  that 

*  Ver.  21.  Marcion  omitted  vers.  21  and  22.  Vcr.  23.  11  Mjj.  30  Mnn.  It.  Vg. 
omit  fi'  before  tu  /.aw,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  U  Mjj. 


450  •  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

of  Antiochus  Epiphanes — a  prediction  which,  according  to  him,  was  not  fulfilled. 
But  in  this  case  we  must  establish  a  contradiction  between  this  threat  and  that  of  the 
entire  destruction  of  the  temple  (Malt.  ver.  G  ;  Mark,  ver.  3),  which  is  purely  arbitrary. 
This  utterance  preserved  the  church  of  Palestine  from  the  infatuation  which, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war,  seized  upon  the  whole  Jewish  nation.  Remembering 
the  warning  of  Jesus  of  the  approach  of  tiie  Roman  armies,  the  Christians  of  Judea 
fled  to  Pella  beyood  Jordan,  and  thus  escaped  the  catastrophe  (Eus.  "  Hist.  Eccl." 
iii.  5,  ed.  Lcemrner).  They  applied  the  expression,  the  mountains  (ver.  21),  to  the 
mountainous  plateaus  of  Gilead.  Ver.  21.  "Let  those  who  dwell  in  the  capital  not 
remain  there,  and  let  those  who  dwell  in  the  country  not  take  refuge  in  it."  The 
inhabitants  of  the  country  ordinarily  seek  their  safety  behind  the  walls  of  the  capital 
But  in  this  case,  Ihis  is  the  very  point  on  which  the  whole  violence  of  the  storm  will 
break.  Ver.  23  gives  the  reason  of  this  dispensation.  Comp.  11  :  50,  51.  Ver.  23 
exiiibits  the  difficultj''  of  flight  in  such  circumstances.  Luke  here  omits  the  saying  of 
Matthew  about  the  impossibility  of  flight  on  the  Sabbath,  which  had  no  direct  appli- 
cation to  Gentiles.  The  land  should  be  taken  in  the  restricted  sense  which  we  give 
the  word,  the  country.  St.  Paul  seems  to  allude  to  the  expression,  wrath  upon  this 
people,  in  Rom.  2  :  5-8  and  1  Thess.  2  :  16.  Ver.  24.  A  million  of  Jews  perished  in 
this  war  ;  97,000  were  led  captive  to  Egypt  and  the  other  provinces  of  the  empire 
(Josrephus).  The  term  narov/xfvj/,  trodden,  denotes  more  than  taking  possession  ;  it  is 
the  oppression  and  contempt  which  follow  couciuest  ;  comp.  Rev.  11  :  2.  This 
unnatural  slate  of  things  will  last  till  the  end  of  the  limes  of  the  Gentiles.  "What  means 
this  expression  peculiar  to  Luke  'I  According  to  ]Meyer  and  Bleek,  nothing  more  than  : 
the  tune  of  Geniile  dominion  over  Jerusalem.  But  would  it  not  be  a  tautology  to  say  : 
Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  by  the  Gentiles  until  the  time  of  Gentile  dominion 
come  to  an  end  ?  Then  the  plural  Kaipoi,  the  times,  is  not  sufficiently  accounted  for  on 
this  view.  Neither  is  the  choice  of  the  term  KaipoS,  t7ie  opportunity,  instead  of  xP'^"-oi, 
a  certain  space  of  time.  In  the  passage  19  :  44,  the  time  of  Israel,  natphi  denotes  the 
season  when  God  visits  this  people  with  the  offer  of  salvation.  According  to  this 
analogy,  tJie  times  of  the  Gentiles  should  designate  the  whole  period  during  which  God 
shall  approach  with  His  grace  the  Gentiles  who  have  been  hitherto  strangers  to  His 
k]ngdom.  Comp.  2  Cor.  6  .  2,  the  expressions  Katpd;  (^ekto-,  i/fifpa  currjpla;.  The 
plural  Kaipol,  the  times,  corresponds  with  the  plural  the  nations  ;  the  Geniile  peoples 
are  called  one  after  another  ;  hence  there  arises  in  this  one  epoch  a  plurality  of 
phases. 

Modern  criticism  accuses  Luke  of  having  introduced  into  the  discourse  of  Jesus  at 
his  own  hand  this  important  idea,  which  is  wanting  in  Mark  and  Matthew  (Holtz- 
maun,  p.  406).  This  supposition,  indeed,  is  inevitable,  if  his  work  is  founded  on 
tiiose  two  writings  or  on  I  lie  documents  from  which  they  are  drawn,  the  proto-Mark 
or  the  Logia,  e.g.  But  if  this  saying  is  not  found  in  the  other  two  Syn.,  the  thought 
which  it  expresses  is  very  clearly  implied.  Do  Ihev  not  both  speak  of  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  to  all  Gentile  pennies  (Matt.  24  :  14),  and  of  a  baptism  to  be  brought  to 
every  creature CSlavX^  16  :  15  ;  Malt.  28  .  19)?  Such  a  work  demands  time.  Gess  refers 
also  to  Miiik  12  :  9,  ]\[att.  21  :  A?,,  and  23  :  18,  where  Je.sus  declares  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  will  pass  for  a  time  to  the  Gentiles,  and  tluit  they  will  biing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof,  and  where  He  describes  the  invitniion  which  shall  be  addressed  to  them  with 
this  view  by  the  servants  of  the  jVIaster  (parable  of  the  marriage  supper).  All  this 
work  necessarily  suppt)SPS  a  special  period  in  hisitnry.  Can  Jesus  have  thought  of 
this  period  as  before  Hie  destructinn  of  .Terusalem  ?  We  have  already  proved  the  falsity 
of  this  assertion.     When,  theiefore,  in  Luke  Jesus  inserts  the  times  of  the  Gentiles 


CHAP.   XXI.  :  '^b-'ZH.  451 

between  the  flt'struclioti  of  Jerusalem  anil  (he  Parousia,  lie  says  nothing  hut  what  is 
implied  in  His  ulieranees  quoted  by  tlie  other  two  Syn.,  necessary  in  itself,  and  con- 
se(iuently  in  keeping  with  His  real  tlioughl.  That  establisiied.  is  it  not  veiy  arbitrary 
to  alleet  suspicion  of  Lid\e"s  saying  in  whicii  this  idea  is  positively'  exj)'essed  V  This 
era  of  the  Uenliles  was  a  notion  foreign  to  ihe  O.  T.  For,  m  the  jjiophetic  view,  the 
end  of  tiie  liicc.craey  always  coitieideil  with  that  of  the  jiresent  world.  We  can  Ihns 
umlerstand  how,  in  the  leprodnction  of  Jesus'  sayings  within  the  bosom  of  the 
Jiideo-Christian  Church,  this  notion,  unconnected  with  anything  in  their  past  views, 
could  l)u  effaced,  and  disappear  fiom  that  oral  proclamation  of  the  gcsjiel  which 
determined  the  form  of  c-ur  two  Jiist  Syn.  In  possession  of  more  exact  written 
documents,  Luke  here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  restored  the  sayings  of  Jesus  to 
their  true  form.  H"  Jesus,  who  lixed  so  exactly  the  tiuie  of  {ha  (h'fttniction  of  Jcntsdhiii 
('"this  generation  shall  not  jtass  till  .  .  ."),  declared  in  Ihe  san'.e  discourse  that 
lie  did  not  Himself  know  the  da)/  of  IL'sconiiiifj  (Mark  18  :  \V2),  it  must  infallibl}'  have 
been  because  Hi?  placed  alongir  or  shorter  interval  between  those  two  events— an 
interval  which  is  piecii^ely  the  period  of  the  Gentiles.  Is  not  this  explanation  more 
probable  than  that  which,  contrary  to  all  psychological  possibilitj',  ascribes  to  Luke 
so  strange  a  license*  as  that  of  deliberately  putting  into  his  Master's  mouth  sayings 
which  He  never  uttered  ? 

Vers.  25-27.f  The  P(xrouina. — "And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun,  and  in  the 
moon,  and  in  the  stars  ,  and  in  the  earth  distress  of  nations  with  perplexity  ;  the  sea 
and  the  waves  roaring  ;  26.  Men's  hearts  failing  them  for  fear,  and  for  looking  after 
those  things  which  are  cimiingon  the  earth  ;  for  the  powers  of  heaven  shall  be  shaken. 
27.  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  a  cloud  with  power  and  great 
glor^'."  We  have  found  that  the  main  subject  of  this  discimrse  was  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  But  how  could  our  Lord  close  the  treatment  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  the  mention  of  the  epoch  of  the  Gentiles  which  was  to  follow  this  catas- 
trophe, without  terminating  by  indicating  the  Parousia,  the  limit  of  the  prophetic 
perspective?  The  mention  which  He  made  in  passing  of  this  last  event,  which  was 
to  consummate  the  judgment  of  the  world  begun  by  the  former,  doubtless  contributed 
to  the  combination  of  the  two  subjects,  and  to  the  confounding  of  the  two  discourses 
in  tradition.  The  intermediate  idea,  therefore,  between  vers.  24  and  25  is  this  : 
"  And  when  those  limes  of  the  period  of  grace  granted  to  the  Gentiles  shall  be  at  an 
end,  then  there  shall  be  .  .  .  ;"  then  follows  the  summary  description  of  the 
Parousia.  Those  two  judgments,  that  of  the  theocracy  and  that  of  the  world,  which 
Luke  separates  by  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,  are  closely  connected  in  ]\Iatthew  by  the 
ei6t(ji,  immediately,  ver.  2'J,  and  by  the  words  following  :  after  the  tribulation  of  those 
days,  which  cannot  well  refer  to  anything  else  than  the  great  tribulation  mentioned 
ver.  21,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  15-20).  In  fact,  the 
Parousia  is  mentioned  here  by  Matthew  (ver.  27)  only  to  condemn  beforehand  the 
l^'ing  revelations  of  false  prophets  (vers.  23-2G)  as  to  the  foim  of  that  event.  In  Mark 
there  is  the  same  connection  as  in  Matthew,  though  somewhat  less  absolute,  between 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Parousia  ("  in  those  days,"  but  without  the 
immediately  of  Matthew).  The  three  writers'  compilations  are,  it  is  easily  seen,  inde- 
pendent of  one  another. 

Jesus  described,  17  :  20-30  and  18  :  S,  the  state  of  worldliness  into  wliich  society 
and  the  Church  itself  would  sink  in  the  last  times.     In  the  midst  of  this  carnal 

*  Holtzmann,  on  occasion  of  the  piece  vers.  25-36,  says,  in  speaking  of  Luke  : 
"  Noch  weiter  geht  die  Licenz     .     .     ."  (p.  237). 

f  Ver.  25.  Si.  I>.  D.,  Eaoirai.  instead  of  ecrai.  Ale.x.  It.  Vg.,  7?,to^S  instead  of 
VXOvarj'iiT.  R.,  liy/.). 


452  COMMEKTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

security,  alarming  symptoms  Tvill  all  at  once  proclaim  one  of  those  universal  revolu- 
tions through  which  our  earth  has  more  than  once  passed.  Like  a  ship  creaking  in 
every  tiraljer  at  the  moment  of  its  going  to  pieces,  the  globe  which  we  inhabit  (?} 
o'lKoviifi-tf),  and  our  whole  solar  system,  shall  undeigouuusualcomiijotions.  The  mov- 
ing forces  {(h^djiELi),  legular  in  their  action  till  then,  sha  1  be  as  it  were  set  free  from 
their  laws  by  an  unknown  power  ;  and  at  the  end  of  this  violent  but  short  distress, 
the  world  shall  see  Him  appear  whose  coming  shall  be  like  the  lightning  which  shines 
from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other  (17  :  24).  The  cloud  is  heie,  as  almost  every- 
where in  Scripture,  the  symbol  of  judgment.  The  galhering  of  t-he elect,  placed  here 
by  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  1  Thess.  4  : 1(7,  17,  2  Thess,  2  : 1, 
where  the  word  emawayuyij  reminds  us  of  the  EniavvdyEiv  of  the  two  evangelists.  Is 
it  not  a  proof  of  the  falsity  of  that  style  of  criticism  which  seeks  to  explain  every 
differeace  in  text  between  the  Syn.  by  ascribing  to  them  opposite  points  of  view? 
Ver.  27.  It  is  not  said  that  the  Lord  shall  return  to  the  earth  to  lemain  there.  This 
coming  can  be  only  a  momentary  appearance,  destined  to  effect  the  resurrection  of  the 
faithful  and  the  ascension  of  the  entire  Church  (1  Cor.  15  :  23  ;  Luke  17  :  31-35  ;  1 
Thess.  4  :  16,  17). 

Vers.  28-3G.*  The  A])plication. — "  When  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass, 
then  look  up,  and  lift  up  your  heads  ;  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh.  29.  And 
He  spake  to  them  a  parable  :  Behold  the  fig-tree,  and  all  the  trees  ;  SO.  When  they 
now  shoot  forth,  ye  see  and  know  of  your  own  selves  that  summer  is  now  nigh  at 
band.  31.  So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  these  things  come  to  pass,  know  ye  that  tlie 
kingdom  of  God  is  nigh  at  hand.  32.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall 
not  pass  away  till  all  be  fulfilled.  33.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  ;  but  my 
words  shall  not  pass  away.  34.  But  take  heed  to  j'ourselves,  lest  at  any  time  your 
hearts  be  overcharged  with  surfeiting  and  drunkenness,  and  cares  of  this  life,  and  so 
that  day  come  upon  you  unawares.  35.  For  as  a  snare  it  shall  come  on  all  thein  that 
dwell  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth.  36.  AVatch  ye,  therefore,  and  pray  always,  that 
ye  may  be  accounted  worthy  to  escape  all  these  things  that  shall  come  to  pass,  and  to 
stand  before  the  Son  of  man."  Jesus  draws  practical  conclusions  from  the  whole  of 
the  preceding  discourse  :  1.  In  respect  of  hope,  vers.  28-33  ;  2.  In  respect  of  watch- 
fulness, vers.  34-36. 

Vers.  28-33.  It  might  be  thought  that  after  this  saying  relative  to  the  Parousia 
(vers.  26,  27),  which  is  strictly  speaking  a  digression,  Jesus  returns  to  the  principal 
topic  of  this  discourse,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  expression  :  your  deliver- 
ance, would  then  denote  the  emancipation  of  the  Judeo- Christian  Church  by  the  de- 
struction of  the  persecuting  Jewish  power.  The  coming  of  the  Mngdom  of  God,  ver. 
31,  would  refer  to  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles  ;  and  ver.  32  : 
this  generation  shall  not  pass  aicay,  would  thus  indicate  quite  naturally  the  date  of  tlie 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Yet  the  fact  of  the  Parousia,  once  mentioned,  is  too  solemn 
to  be  treated  as  a  purely  accessory  idea.  Hhckingdomof  God  seems,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily to  denote  here  rather  the  final  establis-hmentof  the  Messianic  kingdom  ;  and  the 
deliverance  (ver.  28)  should  be  applied  to  the  definitive  emancipation  of  the  Church  by 
the  return  of  the  Lord  (the  deliverance  of  the  widow,  18  : 1-8).     Of  yourselves,  ver. 

*  Ver.  33.  !!^  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.,  Trape'/.cvanvTai  instead  of  ■:rape7Siuai  (which  is  taken 
from  IVIatthew  and  ]\Iark).  Ver.  35.  !*.  B.  D.,  (^e  instead  of  ow.  Ver.  36.  J*.  B.  L. 
X.  7  Mnn.,  KaTiaxv(yJi~£  instead  of  Kara^iuOrjTe.     15  M.jj.  omit  ravra. 


(11 A  I'.    XXI.  :  x'S-ui;.  453 

SO  :  "  It  is  not  necessary  Ihut  au  oflicial  proclumation  announce  to  (lie  inhabitants  of 
llie  world  that  siinmier  is  near  !"  It  isaboutlhe  niiddluof  March  that  fruits  begin  to 
.show  themselves  ou  the  old  branches  of  the  spring  tig-tree  ;  they  reach  matuiitv  be- 
fore the  shooting  of  the  leaves.  The  lirst  harvest  is  gathered  iu  June  (Keim,  iii.  p. 
206). 

Can  ver.  03  refer  still  to  the  Parousia?  But  in  that  case,  how  are  we  to  explain 
the  exiiressiou  :  thin  generation?  Jerome  understood  by  it  the  human  species,  Origen 
and  Clu ysostom  the  Christian  Chur(,'h.  These  explanations  are  now  regarded  as 
forced.  That  of  Dorner  and  Riggeubach,  who  take  it  to  mean  the  Jewish  people 
(applying  to  their  conversion  the  image  of  the  fig-tree  flourishing  again,  vers.  29,  30), 
is  not  much  more  natural.  Iu  this  context,  where  we  have  to  do  with  a  chronolog- 
ical determination  ("  is  nigh,"  ver.  31),  the  meaning  of  yeved  must  be  temporal.  Be- 
sides, we  ha%'e  the  authentic  commentary  ou  this  saying  in  Luke  11  :  50,  51,  where 
Jesus  declares  that  it  is  the  very  generation  which  is  to  shed  Ilis  blood  and  that  of 
His  m(?ssengers,  wiiich  must  suffer,  besides,  the  punishment  of  all  the  innocent  blood 
shed  since  that  of  Abel  down  to  this  last.  It  is  not  less  false  to  give  to  this  expres- 
sion, with  the  Tiibingen  school,  such  an  extension  that  it  embraces  a  period  of  70 
j'ears  (Hilgenfeld),  or  even  of  a  century  (Volkmar)  :  the  duration  of  a  man's  life.  It 
has  not  this  meaning  among  the  ancients.  In  Herod.  (2.  142,  7.  171),  Ileraclitus,  and 
Thuc  (1.  14),  it  denotes  a  space  of  from  30  to  40  j'ears.  A  century  counts  three  gen- 
erations. The  saj'ing  of  Irenteus  respecting  the  composition  ol  the  Apocalypse, 
wherein  he  declares  "  that  this  vision  was  seen  not  long  before  his  epoch,  almost 
within  the  time  of  our  generation,  toward  the  end  of  Domitian's  reign,"  does  not  at 
all  prove  the  contrary,  as  Volkmar  alleges  ;  for  Irenteus  says  expressly  :  cxeidi; 
almmt,  well  aware  that  he  is  extending  the  reach  of  the  term  generation  beyond  its 
ordinary  applicatiou.  Au  impartial  exegesis,  therefore,  leaves  no  doubt  that  this  say- 
ing fixes  the  date  of  the  near  destruction  of  Jerusalem  at  least  the  third  of  a  century 
after  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  The  meaning  is  :  "  The  generation  v/hich  shall  shed  Ibis 
blood  shall  not  pass  away  till  God  refj^uire  it"  (in  opposition  to  all  the  blood  of  the 
ancients  which  has  remained  so  long  unavenged).  JIuvto,  all  thi/igs,  refers  to  all  those 
events  precursive  of  that  cata.strophe  which  are  enumerated  vens.  8-19,  and  to  the 
catastrophe  itself  (20-24).  The  position  of  this  saying  immediately  after  the  preceding 
verses  relative  to  the  Parousia,  seems  to  be  in  Luke  a  faint  evidence  of  the  influence 
exercised  by  that  confusion  which  reigns  throughout  the  whole  dis'course  as  related 
by  the  other  two  Syn.  There  is  nothing  in  that  to  surprise  us.  Would  not  the  omis- 
siou  of  some  word  of  transition,  or  the  simple  displacing  of  some  sentence,  sulfice  to 
produce  this  effect  ?  And  how  many  cases  of  simihir  transpositions  or  omissions  are 
to  be  met  with  in  our  Syn.  ?  But  if  this  observation  is  well  founded,  it  proves  that 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  not  composed,  anj'  more  than  the  other  two,  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem. 

Heai-en  and  earth  (ver.  33)  are  contrasted  with  those  magnificent  structures  which 
His  disciples  would  have  Him  to  admire  (ver.  5)  :  Here  is  a  very  dilTerent  overthrow 
from  that  which  thej'^  liad  so  much  difficulty  in  believing.  This  universe,  this  temple 
made  by  the  hand  of  God,  passethaway  ;  one  thing  remains  :  the  threats  aud  promises 
of  the  Master  who  is  speaking  to  them. 

Vers.  34-36.  Here,  as  in  chap.  12,  the  life  of  the  disciples  is  apparently  to  be  pro- 
longed till  the  Parousia.  The  reason  is,  that  that  period  is  ever  to  remain  the  point 
ou  which  the  btliever's  heart  should  fix  (12  •  36)  ;  and  if,  by  all  the  geneiatious  which 


454  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

precede  the  last,  this  expectation  is  not  realized  in  its  visible  form,  it  has  its  truth, 
nevertheless,  in  the  fact  of  death,  that  constant  individual  returning  of  Jesus  which 
prepares  for  His  general  and  final  advent.  The  warning  ver.  34  refers  to  the  danger 
of  slumbering,  arising  from  the  state  of  the  world  in  the  last  times,  17  :2G-30.  On 
the  last  words  of  the  verse,  comp.  1  Thcss.  5  : 1-7.  Ver.  35.  The  image  is  that  of 
a  net  which  all  at  once  incloses  a  covey  of  birds  peacefully  settled  in  a  field.  To  watch 
(ver.  36)  is  the  emblem  of  constant  expectation.  With  expectation  prayer  is  naturally 
conjoined  under  tlie  influence  of  that  grave  feeling  which  is  produced  by  the 
imminence  of  the  expected  advent.  The  word  cra^j/'/vai,  tosUind  uprirjlit,  indicates  the 
solemnity  of  the  event.  A  diviue  power  will  be  needed,  if  we  are  not  to  sink  before 
the  Son  of  man  in  His  glory,  and  be  forced  to  exclaim  :  "  Mountains,  fall  on  us  !" 

"With  this  discourse  before  it,  the  embarrassment  of  rationalism  is  great.  Hov/ 
explain  the  announcement  of  tlie  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  if  there  aie  no  prophecies? 
that  of  the  Parousia,  if  .Jesus  is  but  a  sinful  man  like  ourselves  (not  to  say,  with 
Renau,  a  fanatic)  ?  Baur  and  Strauss  say  :  Under  the  influence  of  Daniel's  extrava- 
gant sayings,  Jesus  could  easily  predict  His  return  ;  but  He  could  not  announce  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Hase  and  Schenkel  say  :  Jesus,  as  a  good  politician,  might 
we  1  foresee  and  predict  the  liestruction  of  the  temple,  but  (and  this  is  also  M.  Colani's 
opniioii)  itisiinp()ssit)le  to  m;.keafanatic  of  Him  announcing  Hisielurn.  Each  writer 
thus  determines  a  prioj-ithe  result  of  his  criticism,  according  to  his  own  dogmatic  con- 
viction. It  is  perfectly  useless  to  discuss  the  matter  on  such  bases.  Keim  recognizes 
the  indisputable  historical  realil}''  of  the  announcement  of  tiie  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
on  the  ground  of  Matt.  26  :  GO  (the  false  witnesses),  and  of  Acts  G  -.11-14  (Stephen), 
and  tlie  truth  of  the  promise  of  the  Parousia  as  well  ,  the  .saying  Mark  13  .  33  is  a  proof 
of  it  which  cannot  be  evaded.  Nevertheless,  agreeing  in  part  with  M.  Colani.  he  rc- 
gaids  the  disc  (urse  Matt.  24  as  the  composition  of  an  author  much  later  than  the 
ministry  of  Jesus,  who  has  improved  upon  some  actual  words  of  His.  This  apoca- 
lyptic poem,  Jewish  accordiug  to  Weizi-iicker,  Judeo-Cliristian  according  to  Colani 
and  Keim,  was  written  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

The  following  are  our  objections  to  tliis  hj-potliesis  :  1.  It  is  not  in  this  discourse 
only  that  Jesus  announces  the  catastrophe  of  Israel,  and  appends  the  extraordinary 
assertion  of  His  return.  On  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  read  asain  Matt.  21  :  44, 
Luke  19  :  42-44,  Mark  11  :  14,  20,  12  :  9,  etc.  etc.  ;  and  on  the  Parousia,  Matt.  7  :  21-23, 
19  :  28,  2o  :  31-4G,  26  :  G8,  64,  Luke  9  :  26  and  parall.,  13  :  23-2T,  etc.  How  could 
those  numerous  declarations  which  we  flnd  scattered  over  dilTereut  parts  of  our  Syn. 
Go~-pels,  be  all  borrowed  from  Ibis  alleged  apocalyptic  poem  ?  2.  How  could  a  private 
composition  have  obtained  such  general  authority,  under  the  very  eyes  of  the  apos- 
tles or  their  first  disciples,  that  it  found  admission  into  our  three  Syn.  Gospels  as  an 
authentic  saying  of  our  Lord  ?  Was  ever  a  pure  poem  transformed  into  an  exact  and 
solemn  discourse,  such  as  that  expressly  put  by  our  three  evangelists  at  this  deter- 
minate historical  time  iuto  the  mouth  of  Jesus  ?  Such  a  hypothesis  is  nothing  else 
than  a  stroke  of  desperation. 

Volkraar  finds  in  this  discourse,  as  everywhere,  the  result  of  the  miserable  in- 
trigues of  tlie  Christian  parties.  .John  the  aposile  had  published  in  68  the  great  rev- 
erie of  the  Apocalypse.  He  still  hoped  for  the  preservation  of  the  temple  (Rev. 
'il  :1  et  seq.),  which  proves  that  he  had  never  heard  his  Master  announce  its  destruc- 
tion. Five  years  later,  in  73,  ]\Iark  composes  another  Apocalypse,  intended  to  rectify 
the  former.  He  elaborates  it  from  the  Pauline  standpoint  ;  he  rejects  its  loo  precise 
dates,  and  the  details  which  had  been  hazarded,  but  which  the  event  had  proved  false  ; 
the  fixing,  e.g.,  of  the  three  years  and  a  half  which  were  to  extend  to  the  Parousia,  a 
date  for  which  he  prudently  substitutes  the  saying  :  "  As  to  that  daj'.  even  I  myself 
know  it  not,"  etc.  Such  is  the  origin  of  the  great  eschatological  discourse  in  the 
S3''n.,  the  most  ancient  monument  of  which  is  Mark  13.  But,  1.  This  alleged  dog- 
matic contrast  between  the  discourse  Mark  13  and  the  Apocalypse  exists  only  in  the 
mind  of  V'llkmar  ;  the  latter  celebrates  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  with  the  same 
enthusiasm  as  the  former  foretells  it.     2.  The  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  in  68  is 


ciiAr.    x\i.  :  ;]t)-;?8.  455 

an  hypothesis,  the  falsehood  of  which  we  have,  as  we  tliiuk,  dcmoustraletl.*  o.  It  is 
\itterly  false  that  the  Apocalypse  teaches  the  preservation  of  the  teni[>le  of  .lerusaleni. 
The  clescri[)tii)U  11  :  1  ct  t<Kj.,  if  it  is  lo  be  rescued  from  absurdity,  iinist  necessarily 
he  taken  in  a  tigiiialive  sense,  as  we  have  also  demonstrated. f  4.  Certainly  the  poet- 
ical representations  of  the  Apocnlypse  were  not  the  original  of  the  simple,  concise, 
prosaic  expressions  of  the  discourse  of  .Jesus  in  the  Syn.  ;  it  was  these,  on  the  con- 
trary-, which  served  as  a  canvas  for  the  rich  delineations  of  the  Apocalypse.  Is  it  not 
evid'ent  that  the  literal  terms  tc<a',f(i)niiic,  pestilence,  earViquakes,  \u  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  (Luke  21  :  l)-ll  and  parall.),  are  amplified  and  developed  into  the  form  of  com- 
plete visions  in  the  apocalyptic  seals  {irar,  in  liev.  (3  :  o,  4  ;  fdiume,  in  vers.  5:0; 
pestilence,  in  vers.  7,  8  ;  eartlt(]uake,  in  vers.  12-17  ;  comp.  also  the  pei'tiecufion.t  fore- 
told Luke  5  :  10,  17,  with  Kev.  0  :  S)-ll,  and  the  false  Christs  and  prophets  predicted 
]\Iatt.  24  :24.  with  Kev.  13)?  The  inverse  procedure,  the  return  from  the  elal)orate  to 
the  simple,  from  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Gospels,  is  in  its  very  nature  inadmissible. 
The  composition  of  Jesus'  discourse  in  the  Syn.  is  therefore  anterior  to  tliat  of  the 
Apocalypse,  and  not  the  reverse.  5.  The  liistorical  declaration  of  Jesus  in  ^Alark  : 
"  Of  that  day  knoweth  no  man,  not  even  the  Son,"  is  confirmed  by  Matt.  24  :  cIO  and 
iSIark  12  :  35.  It  results  from  the  very  contents  of  this  marvellous  saying.  Who 
would  have  thought,  at  the  time,  when  the  conviction  of  the  Lord's  divinity  was  mak- 
ing way  with  so  much  force  in  the  I'hurch,  and  when  Jesus  was  represented  in  this 
very  discourse  as  the  universal  Judge,  of  putting  into  His  mouth  a  saying  which 
seemed  to  bring  Him  down  to  the  level  of  other  human  beings?  Such  a  saying  must 
have  rested  on  the  most  authentic  tradition.  0.  We  have  proved  the  nuitual  inde- 
pendence of  the  three  sj'iioptical  accounts.  'J'he  origin  of  this  discourse  of  Jesus 
was  therefore,  no  doubt,  apostolical  tradition  circulating  in  the  Church,  ag'ceably  to 
Lukel  :1.  2. 

Jesus  then  called  Himself,  and  consequentlj'  either  knew  or  believed  Himself  to 
he,  the  future  judge  of  the  Churcli  anil  the  world.  In  the  former  case.  He  must  i)e 
something  more  than  a  sinful  man — lie  can  be  only  the  God-man  ;  in  the  hitter,  He 
is  only  a  fool  carried  away  with  pride.  In  vain  will  ]MM.  Colani,  Volkmar,  and  Keim 
attempt  to  escape  from  this  dilemma.  Genuine  historical  criticism  and  an  impartial 
exegesis  will  always  raise  it  anew,  and  allow  no  other  choice  than  between  the  Christ 
of  tlie  Church  and  the  clever  charmer  of  M.  Renan. 

What  conclusion  should  be  drawn  from  this  discourse  as  to  the  date  when  our 
S^'n.,  and  Luke  in  particular,  were  compo-sed?  De  Welte  has  justly''  concluded, 
from  the  close  connection  which  this  discourse,  as  we  have  it  in  Matthew,  fixes  be- 
tween the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Parousia,  that  this  Gospel  must  have  been 
composed  before  tlie  former  of  tiiose  two  events.  And,  in  truth,  it  requires  all 
Volkmar's  audacity  to  attempt  to  prove  the  contrary  by  means  of  that  very  erOtw?, 
immediately  (24  :  21*),  which  so  directly,  as  we  have  seen,  connects  the  second  event 
with  the  tirst.  But  if  this  conclusion  is  well  foundetl  in  regard  to  the  first  Gospel,  it 
is  not  less  applicable  to  the  second,  which  in  this  respect  is  in  exactly  the  same  cir- 
cumstances as  tlie  tirst.  As  to  Luke,  it  has  often  been  inferred  from  tlie  well- 
marked  distinction  kept  up  between  the  two  subjects  and  the  two  discouises  (Parou- 
sia, chap.  17  ;  destruction  of  Jerusalem  chap.  21),  that  be  wrote  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  when  the  interval  between  the  two  events  was  historically  established. 
TJational  as  this  conclusion  may  appear  at  first  sigiit,  it  is  nevertheless  unfounded. 
For,  1.  Luke  himself,  as  we  have  seen  at  ver.  32,  is  not  wholly  exempt  from  the  con- 
fusion which  prevails  in  the  other  two.  2.  If  Jesus  in  His  own  judgment  distinctly 
sejiarated  those  two  events,  why  might  He  not  have  spoken  of  them  Himself  in  two 
separate  discourses  ;  and  why  might  not  Luke,  in  this  case  as  in  many  others,  have 
simply  reproduced  the  historical  fact  from  more  exact  originals  (1  :  3,  4)  ? 

3.  General  View  of  the  Situation:  vers.  37,  38. t — The  preceding  discourse  was 
delivered  by  Jesus  on  the  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  evening.  Luke  here  characterizes 
our  Lord's  mode  of  living  during  the  last  days  of  His  life.      Ai^.i^^eaOai :  to  pass  the 

*  "  Bulletin  Theologique,"  18G5,  pp.  230-249.  t  H'-  P-  242. 

X  Ver.  38.  4  Mnn.  add  at  the  end  of  this  verse,  Kai  a-:zi]/.dov  enaaror  eti  toi'  oikov 
avTov.  then  the  narrative  John  8  :  1-11. 


456  COMMENTARY    OJST    ST.   LUKE.  j 

night  in  the  open  air.  The  use  of  the  £«s  arises  from  the  idea  of  motion  contained  in 
k^e^X^litvo'i  (Bleek).  4  Mnn.  place  here,  after  ver.  38,  the  account  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery,  which  in  a  large  number  of  documents  is  found  John  7  :  53-8  :  11. 
We  can  only  see  in  this  piece,  in  Luke  as  well  as  in  John,  an  interpolation  doubtless 
owing  to  some  marginal  note  taken  by  a  copyist  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  which  in  some  mss.  had  found  its  way  into  the  text  of  the  Gospel.  As  to  the 
rest,  this  narrative  would  stand  much  better  in  Luke  than  in  John.  It  has  a  close 
bond  of  connection  with  the  contents  of  chap.  20  (the  snares  laid  for  Jesus).  And 
an  event  of  this  kind  may  have  actually  occurred  in  the  two  or  three  days  which  are 
summarily  described  in  vers.  37  aud  38. 


SIXTH    TART. 


THE    PASSION. 

CHAPS.   22    AND  23. 

The  Saviour  had  taken  up  a  truly  royal  attitude  in  tlie  temple.  Now  this  short 
anticipation  uf  His  kingdom,  the  normal  blossomiug  of  His  prophetic  activity,  is 
over;  and  limiting  Himself  to  a  silence  and  passivity  which  have  earned  for  this 
period  the  name  of  the  Passion,  He  exercises  that  terrestrial  priesthood  which  was  to 
be  tiiL-  transition  from  His  prophetic  ministry  to  His  celestial  sovereignty. 

We  liud  in  the  fourth  Gospel  (chap.  12)  a  scene  which  must  have  occurred  en  one 
of  tiie  days  referred  to  by  Luke  21  :  37,  38,  the  discourse  which  Jesus  uttered  in  the 
temple  in  answer  to  the  question  of  some  Greek  proselytes  who  had  desired  to  con- 
veise  with  Him,  and  the  divine  mauifestalion  wliich  took  place  on  that  occasion. 
Then  it  is  said,  "  And  He  departed,  and  did  hide  Himself  from  them"  (ver.  36). 
This  departure  could  not  he  that  of  Matt.  24  :  1  (parail.  Luke  21  :  5).  The  scene 
whicli  precedes  differs  too  widely.  It  took  place,  therefoie,  one  or  two  dtiys  later ; 
and  this  supposition  agrees  with  the  meaning  of  the  last  two  verses  of  chap.  21,  which 
forbid  us  to  believe  that  after  the  eschatological  discourse  Jesus  did  not  reappear  in 
the  temple.  Thus,  if  we  place  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  on  Sunday  afternoon,  the 
pnrificatiou  of  the  temple  on  Monday  (Mark),  the  captious  questions  put  to  Him  on 
Tuesday,  and  the  prophecy  respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  on  the  evening  of 
that  day,  the  temple  scene  related  John  12  may  have  occurred  on  Wednesday  ;  in 
which  case,  Jesus  would  pass  the  last  daj"",  Thursday,  in  His  ret'eat  at  Bethany  with 
His  disciples.  If  it  is  alleged,  with  Bleek,  that  the  entry  on  Palm  Day  took  place  on 
Monday,  each  of  the  events  mentioned  is  put  back  a  day  ;  and  the  temple  scene  fall- 
ing in  this  case  r)n  Thursdciy,  Jesus  must,  on  the  contrary,  have  passed  this  last  day, 
like  all  the  rest,  at  Jerusalem.  Whatever  Keim  may  say,  who  alleges  two  days  of 
complete  retirement,  Wednesday  and  Thursday,  everything  considered,  we  regard 
the  second  supposition  as  the  simplest. 

The  narrative  of  the  Passion  comprehends  :  L  The  preparation  for  the  Passion 
(22  : 1-lG).  IL  The  Passion  (22  :  47  ;  23  :  4G).  IIL  The  events  following  the  Passion 
(23  :  47-50). 

FIRST   CYCLE. — CHAP.    22  :  1-4S. 

The  Preparation  for  the  Passion. 

This  cj'cle  comprehends  the  three  following  events  :  Judas  preparing  for  the 
Passion  by  selling  Jesus  ;  Jesus  preparing  His  disciples  for  it  at  His  last  supper  ;  Kis 
l)re[jariug  Himself  for  it  by  prayer  in  Gethsemane. 


458  GOMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

I.  TheTreacliery  of  Judas:  23  :  1-6.*— Vers.  1-6.  The  resolution  of  the  Sanhedrim 
•wastalcen.  The  only  question  for  it  heuceforlh  was  that  of  the  how  {to  ndiS,  ver.  2).  Its 
perplexit}"^  arose  from  the  extraordinary  favor  whicli  Jesus  enjoyed  with  the  people, 
particularly  with  the  crowds  who  had  come  from  Galilee  and  from  abroad  ;  the  rulers 
feared  a  popular  rising  on  the  part  of  those  numerous  friends  who  had  come  from  a 
distance  with  Him,  and  of  whom  they  did  Let  feel  themselves  the  masters,  as  they 
did  of  the  population  of  Jerusalem.  So,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  they  said 
in  their  conclaves,  "  Not  during  the  feast,"  which  may  signify  either  Oefore,  ere  the 
multitudes  are  fully  assembled,  or  after,  when  they  shall  have  departed,  and  they 
shall  be  again  masters  of  the  field.  But  it  was  in  exact  keepmg  with  the  divine  plan 
that  Jesus  should  die  during  the  feast  {h  ry  eopry) ;  and  the  perfidy  of  Judas,  the  means 
which  the  rulers  thought  they  could  use  to  attain  their  end,  was  that  of  which  God 
made  use  to  attain  His. 

It  appears  from  Malt.  26  :  2  and  Mark  14  :  1  that  it  was  Wednesday  when  the 
negotiation  between  Judas  and  the  Sanhedrim  toolc  place.  Luke  and  Mark  omit  the 
words  of  Jesus  (Matthew),  "  In  two  days  is  the  Passover  .  .  ."  But  those  two 
days  appear  in  Mark  in  the  form  of  the  narrative.  The  word  Passover,  t6  ndaxa,  from 
nCC  .  ill  Aramaic  fsTiCC  signifies  a  passing,  and  commemorates  the  manner  iu 
which  the  Israelites  were  spared  in  Egypt  when  the  Almighty  jjassed  over  their 
houses,  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  without  slaying  their  first-born.  This 
name,  which  originally  denoted  the  lamb,  was  applied  later  to  the  Supper  itself,  then 
to  the  entire  feast.  The  Passover  was  celebrated  in  the  first  month,  called  jS'isn?i, 
from  the  15th  of  the  month,  the  day  of  full  moon,  to  the  21st.  This  season  corre- 
sponds to  the  end  of  March  and  beginning  of  April.  The  feast  opened  on  the  evening 
which  closed  the  14th  and  began  the  15th,  with  the  Paschal  Supper.  Originally 
every  father,  in  virtue  of  the  priesthood  belonging  to  every  Isiaelile,  sacrificed  his 
Iamb  himself  at  his  own  house.  But  since  the  Passover  celebrated  by  Josiah,  the 
lambs  were  sacrificed  in  the  temple,  and  with  the  help  of  the  priests.  This  act  took 
place  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th,  from  three  to  six  o'clock  Some  hours  after  the 
Supper  began,  which  was  prolonged  far  into  the  night.  This  Supper  opened  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread  (fop-//  tuv  a^vuuv,  ver.  1)  which,  according  to  the  law, 
lasted  the  seven  following  days.  The  first  and  last  (15th  and  21st)  were  sabbatic. 
The  intermediate  days  were  not  hallowed  by  acts  of  worship  and  sacrifices  ;  work  was 
lawful.  As  Joseph  us  expressly  says  that  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  lasted  eig/d 
days,  agreeing  with  our  Syn.,  who  make  it  begin  (m  the  14lh  (ver.  7  ;  Malt.  26  :  17  : 
Mark  14  :  12).  and  not  on  the  15th,  we  must  conclude  that  in  practice  the  use  of 
unleavened  bread  had  been  gradually  extended  to  the  14th.  To  the  present  day.  it  is 
on  the  night  between  the  13th  and  14th  that  all  leaven  is  removed  from  Israelitish 
houses. 

Luke,  ver.  3,  ascribes  the  conduct  of  Judas  to  a  Satanic  influence.  He  goes  the 
length  of  saying  that  Satan  entered  into  him.  He  means  to  remark  here,  in  a  general 
way,  the  intervention  of  that  superior  agent  in  this  extraordinary  crime  ;  while  John, 
seeking  to  characterize  its  various  degrees,  more  exactly  distinguishes  the  time  when 
Satan  put  into  the  heart  of  Judas  the  first  thought  of  it  (comp.  13  :  2),  and  the 

*  Ver.  3.  A.  B.  D.  L.  X.,  Ka/.ov/jevov  instead  of  sTriKa^oviievov.  Ver.  4.  C.  P.  10 
Mnn.  SjT.  Iip'-^rique,  add  Kai  roii  ypau/inrevaiv  afler  ro/S  aoxiepEvaiv.  C.  P.  9  ]\Inn. 
Syr*'^'^.  add  tov  lepov  after  rrrnaTTj-yni.?.  Ver.  5.  The  mss.  are  divided  between 
upyvpiov  and  apyvpia.      Ver.  6.  !!**  C.  IlP'"iT>e^  omit  Kai  E^u>no7.oyr)r!EV. 


CHAP.    XXII.  :  1-38.  409 

moment  when  lie  entered  into  hhn  so  as  to  take  entire  possession  of  his  will  (13  :  27). 
Aecorciing  to  tlie  bihiical  view,  tliis  intervenlion  of  Satan  did  not  at  all  exclude  the 
liberty  of  Judas.  This  diNci[jle,  in  joining  the  service  of  Jesus,  had  not  taken  care 
to  deny  his  own  life,  as  Jesus  so  often  wrged  His  own  to  do.  Jesus,  instead  of  be- 
coiniug  the  end  to  his  heart,  had  remained  the  means.  And  now,  when  he  saw  things 
terminal ing  in  a  result  entirely  opposed  to  that  with  which  he  had  ambitiously  llat- 
tered  himself,  he  wished  at  least  to  try  to  benefit  by  the  false  i)Ositiou  into  which  he 
h;id  put  himself  with  his  nation,  and  to  use  his  advantages  as  a  disciple  in  order  to 
regain  the  favor  of  the  rulers  with  whom  he  had  bioken.  The  thirty'  pieces  of  silver 
ceilainly  playeii  onl}'  a  secondary  part  in  his  treachery,  although  this  part  was  real 
nolwithslanding  ;  for  the  e]iilhet  thief  (John  13  :  G)  is  given  to  him  with  the  view  of 
pulling  his  habitual  conduct  in  connection  with  this  final  act.  Matthew  and  j\[ark 
insert  here  the  narrative  of  the  fe;:st  at  Bethany,  though  it  must  have  taken  place 
some  days  before  (John).  The  reason  for  this  inseition  is  an  association  of  ideas  aris- 
ing from  the  moral  relation  between  these  two  paiticulars  in  which  the  avarice  of 
Judas  showed  itself.  The  arpa-riyoi,  captains  (ver.  4),  are  the  heads  of  the  soldiery 
charged  with  keeping  guard  over  the  temple  (Acts  4  :  1).  There  was  a  positive  con- 
tract (///t-y  C(>r('/<(n//t'(/,  he  promised).  *A rep,  not  at  a  distance  from  the  multitude,  but 
without  a  multitude  ;  that  is  to  say,  without  an}-  flocking  together  produced  by  the 
occasion.  This  wholl}'  unexpected  olTer  determined  the  Sanhediim  to  act  before 
lather  than  after  the  feast.  But  in  order  to  that,  it  was  necessary  to  make  hasto  ;  the 
last  moment  had  come. 

II.  The  Last  Supjier :  23  :  7-38.— We  find  ourselves  here  face  to  face  with  a  diffi- 
culty which,  since  the  second  century  of  the  Church,  has  ariested  the  attentive 
readers  of  the  Scriptures.  As  it  was  on  the  14th  JN'isan,  in  the  afternoon,  that  the 
Paschal  lamb  was  sacrificed,  that  it  might  be  eaten  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  it 
has  been  customary  to  take  the  time  designated  by  the  woids,  ver.  7,  Then  came  the 
day  of  unleavened  tread  when  the  2\issorer  must  be  killed  (comp.  Matthew  and  Mark), 
as  falling  on  the  morning  of  that  14th  day  ;  from  which  it  would  follow  that  the 
Supper,  related  ver.  14,  et  seq.,  took  place  the  evening  between  the  l-ilh  and  loth. 
This  view  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  parallels  Matt.  26  :  17,  Mark  14  :  12,  where  the 
disciples  (not  Jesus,  as  in  Luke)  take  the  initiative  in  the  steps  needed  for  the  Supper 
If  such  was  the  fact,  it  appeared  that  the  apostles  could  not  have  been  occupied  with 
the  matter  till  the  morning  of  the  14th.  But  thereby  the  explanation  came  into  con- 
flict with  John,  who  seems  to  say  in  a  considerable  number  of  passages  that  Jesus 
was  crncified  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14tli,  at  the  time  when  they  were  slaying  the 
lamb  in  the  tempi*,  which  necessarily  supposes  that  the  last  Supper  of  Jesus  with 
His  disciples  took  place  the  evening  between  the  13lh  and  14th,  the  eve  before  that 
on  which  Israel  celebrated  the  Paschal  Supper,  and  not  the  evening  between  the  14th 
and  loth.  This  seeming  contradiction  does  not  bear  on  the  day  of  {\iQiceek  on  wiiich 
Jesus  was  crucified.  Accordinu'  to  our  four  Gospels,  this  day  wa*5  indisputably 
Friday.  The  difference  relates  merely  to  the  day  of  the  month,  but  on  that  very 
accnunt.  also,  to  the  relation  between  the  last  Supper  of  Jesus  at  which  He  instituted 
the  tucharist,  and  the  Paschal  feast  of  that  year.  Many  commentators— Wieseler, 
Hofmann,  Lichfcnsttin.  Tholuck,  Riggenbach— think  that  they  can  identify  the 
meaning  of  John's  passages  with  the  idea  which  at  first  sight  appears  to  be  that  of 
the  synopti(;al  narrative  ;  Jesus,  according  to  John  as  according  to  the  Syn..  cele- 
brated His  last  Supper  on  the  evening  of  the  14th,  and  instituted  the  Holy  Supper 


460  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

while  celebrating  Ihe  Passover  conjoinlly  with  the  whole  people.  We  have  explained 
in  our  "  Commentaire  sur  I'evangile  de  Jean"  the  reasons  which  appear  to  us  to  ren- 
der this  soltil  ion  impossible.*  The  arguments  advanced  since  then  by  the  learned 
Catholic  theologian  Langen,  and  bj'  the  eminent  philologist  Biiumlein,  have  not 
changed  our  conviction. f  The  meaning  which  presents  itself  first  to  the  mind  on 
reading  John's  Gospel,  is  and  remains  the  only  possible  one,  exegetically  speaking. 
But  it  may  and  should  be  asked  in  return,  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  synoptical 
Durrative,  and  its  relation  to  John's  account  thus  understood?  Such  is  the  point 
which  we  proceed  to  examine  as  we  study  more  closely  the  text  of  Luke. 

The  narrative  of  Luke  embraces  :  1.  The  preparation  for  the  feast  (vers.  7-13)  ;  2. 
The  feast  itself  (vers.  14-23)  ;  3.  The  conversations  which  followed  the  feast  (vers. 
24-38.) 

1.  17ie  Preparations:  vers.  7-13. t — There  is  a  marked  difference  between  the 
^/.9f,  came,  of  ver.  7,  and  the  7/y-yi(£,  drew  nigh,  of  ver.  1.  The  word  dreic  nigh  placed 
us  one  or  two  days  before  the  Passover  ;  the  word  came  denotes  the  beginning  of  the 
day  on  which  the  lamb  was  killed,  the  14th.  Is  this  time,  as  is  ordinarily  supposed, 
the  morning  of  the  14th  ?  But  after  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  the  14lh  began 
at  even,  about  six  o'clock.  The  whole  night  between  the  13th  and  Mth,  in  our  lan- 
guage, belonged  to  the  I4tli.  How,  then,  could  the  word  came  apply  to  a  time  when 
the  entire  first  half  of  the  day  was  already  past  ?  The  came  of  ver.  7  seems  to  us, 
therefore,  to  denote  what  in  our  language  we  should  call  the  evening  of  the  13th 
(among  the  Jews  the  time  of  transition  from  the  13lh  to  the  14lh,  from  four  to  six 
o'clock).  The  expressions  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  vvithout  being  so  precise,  do  not 
necessarily  lead  to  a  differ;  nt  meaning.  Indeed,  the  expression  of  Mark,  ver.  12, 
does  not  signify,  "  at  the  time  when  they  killed  .  .  ."  but  "  the  day  when  they 
.  .  ."  But  may  we  place  on  the  13th,  in  the  evening,  the  command  of  Jesus  to 
His  two  disciples  to  prepare  the  feast  for  the  morrow  ?  That  is  not  only  possible,  but 
necessary.     On  the  morning  of  the  14th  it  would  have  been  too  late  to  think  of  pro- 

*  See  at  13  :  1,  18  .  28,  19  :  14,  and  the  special  dissertation,  t.  ii.  pp.  629-036. 

f  Langen,  "  Die  letzten  Lebenstage  Jesu,"  1864  ;  Baumlein,  "  Commentar  liber  das 
Epaugeiium  Juhaunis,"  1863.  Both  apply  the  exj^ression  before  the  feast  of  Pass- 
over (John,  13  : 1),  to  the  evening  of  the  lllli,  making  the  feast  of  Passover,  projieily 
so  called,  begin  on  the  morning  of  the  IStli.  Langen  justifies  this  way  of  speaking 
by  Deut.  16  :  6,  where  he  translates  :  "  At  the  rising  of  the  sun  (instead  of  at  the 
going  down  of  the  sun)  is  the  feast  of  the  coming  forth  out  of  Egypt."  This  tians- 
lation  is  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  Gen.  28  :  11,  etc.  The  passage  of  Jnsephus  wiiich 
he  adds  (Aniiii.  iii.  10.  5)  has  as  little  force.  We  think  that  we  have  demnnstialcd 
Jiovv  insufficient  is  Deut.  16  :  2  to  justify  that  interpietation  of  John  18  :  28  which 
would  reduce  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  to  eai  the  Passover,  to  the  idea  of  eating  Ihe 
unleavened  bread  and  the  sacrificial  viands  of  the  Paschal  week.  As  to  John  19  :  14, 
there  is  no  doubt  that,  as  Langen  proves,  the  N.  T.  (Mark  15  -.42),  tlie  Talmud,  and 
the  Fathers  use  the  term  napaoKevij,  preparation,  to  denote  Friday  as  the  weekly  prep- 
aration for  the  Sabbath,  and  that,  con<?equently,  in  certain  contexts  the  expression 
naparjKevi/  tdv  -acxn,  preparation  of  the  Passover,  might  signify  the  Friday  of  the  Pass- 
over week.  But  this  meaning  is  excluded  in  John  :  1st.  By  the  ambignity  which  the 
expression  must  have  presented  to  the  mind  of  his  Greek  readers  ;  2d.  By  tiie  fact 
that  no  reader  of  the  Gospel  could  be  ignorant  that  the  narrative  lay  in  the  Paschal 
week. 

X  Ver.  7.  B.  C.  D.  L.  omit  ev  before  rj.  Ver.  10.  i^.  B.  C.  L.,  e<?  v^  instead  of  ov 
or  ov  eav.  Ver.  12.  Instead  of  avuytov  (T.  R.  with  X.  r.),  4  Mjj.  nvuyaiov,  the 
others  avayniov.  54.  L.  X.,  kukel  instead  of  enei..  Ver.  13.  !!*.  B.  C.  D.  L,,  cipr/Kei. 
instead  of  eipT/Kev. 


CHAP.  XXII.  :  7-13.  461 

curing  an  apartment  for  that  vcrj^  cvcninc;.  Strauss  fully  acknowledges  this  :  *  "  lu 
consequence  of  the  flocking  of  pilgrims  from  a  distance,  it  was  of  course  ditlicuit,  and 
even  impossible  to  lind  on  the  morning  of  tlie  first  day  of  tiie  feast  (the  14lh).  for  the 
very  evening,  a  room  not  yet  talvcn  up."  Phices  were  then  tulien  at  least  a  day  in 
advance.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  this  account,  gives  the  lUlii  the  name  of 
irpoeToifiaaia,  pro-preparation.  The  14th  was  the  preparation,  because  on  that  day  I  lie 
lamb  was  killed  ;  the  l;3lh,  i\\Q  pro-preparation,  because,  as  Clement  says,  on  that  day 
they  consecrated  the  unleavened  bread  and  took  all  the  other  steps  necessary  for  the 
Paschal  feast. f  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  question  put  by  iMatthew  and  Alark  into 
the  mouth  of  the  disci|)les,  "  Where  wilt  Thou  tliat  we  prepare  the  Passover  ?"  must 
likewise  be  placed  on  the  evening  of  the  13lh,  which  for  the  Jews  was  already  pass- 
ing into  the  14th.  It  matters  little,  therefore,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned, 
whether  the  initiative  be  ascribed  to  Jesus  (Luke)  or  to  the  disciples  (]\Iattliew  and 
Mark).  As  to  the  rest,  on  this  point  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  evidently  the  most  pre- 
cise and  exact,  for  he  also,  ver.  9,  relates  the  question  of  the  disciples,  but  replacing 
it  in  its  true  position.  Luke  alone  mentions  the  names  of  the  two  apostles  chosen. 
He  must  have  borrowed  this  detail  from  a  piivate  source— at  least  if  he  did  not  invent 
it  !  In  any  case,  the  fact  would  not  agree  very  well  with  his  alleged  habitual  animos- 
ity against  St.  Peter.J  Jesus  must  have  had  an  object  in  specially  choosing  those 
two  disciples.  "We  shall  see,  in  fa(;t,  that  this  was  a  confidential  mission,  which 
could  be  trusted  to  none  but  His  surest  and  most  intimate  f  ripuds.  If  it  was  between 
four  and  six  o'clock  in  the  evening,  the  apostles  had  yet  time  to  execute  their  com- 
mission before  night,  whether  they  had  passed  the  day  in  the  city,  and  Jesus  left  them 
to  do  it  when  He  Himself  was  starting  for  Bethany  with  the  purpose  of  returning  later 
to  Jerusalem,  or  whether  He  had  [)assed  the  whole  of  this  last  day  at  Bethany,  and 
sent  them  from  the  latter  place. 

Why  does  Jesus  not  describe  to  them  more  plainly  (vers.  10-12)  the  host  whom  He 
has  in  view  ?  There  is  but  one  answer  :  He  wishes  the  house  where  He  reckons  oa 
celebrating  the  feast  to  remain  unknown  to  those  who  surround  Hi  n  at  the  time  when 
He  gives  this  order.  This  is  whj',  instead  of  describing  it.  He  gives  the  sign  indi- 
cated. Jesus  knew  the  projects  of  Judas  ;  the  whole  narrative  of  the  feast  which 
follows  proves  this  ;  and  He  wished,  by  acting  in  this  wa}',  to  escape  from  the  hin- 
drances which  the  treachery  of  His  disciple  might  have  \)\\i  in  His  way  in  the  use 
which  He  desired  to  make  of  this  last  evening.  The  sign  indicated,  a  man  drawing 
water  from  a  fountain,  is  not  so  accidental  as  it  appears.  On  the  evening  of  the  13th, 
before  the  stars  appeared  in  tlie  lientens,  every  father,  according  to  Jewish  custom,  had 
to  repair  to  the  fountain  to  diaw  pure  water  with  which  to  knead  tlie  unleavened 
bread.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  rite  which  was  carried  through  to  the  words  :  "  This  is  the 
water  of  unleavened  bread."  Then  a  torch  was  lighted,  and  during  some  following 
part  of  the  night  the  house  was  visited,  and  searched  in  every  corner,  to  put  away 
the  smallest  vestige  of  leaven.  There  is  thus  a  closer  relation  than  appears  between 
the  sign  and  its  meaning.     Here  is  a  new  proof  of  the  supernatural  knowledge  of 

*  "  Lebeu  Jesu  fiir  d.  d.  V^olk,''  p.  533. 

f  "  On  this  day  (the  13Ui)  took  place  the  consecration  of  the  unleavened  bread 
and  the  ])r()-preparatiou  of  liie  feast."  (Fiagmeul  of  his  hook,  tte pi  tov  Traa^a,  pre- 
served in  the  "  Chronicon  Paschale. ") 

X  So  small  a  thing  does  not  trouble  Baur  !  Here,  according  to  him,  we  have  a 
naalicious  notice  from  Luke,  who  wishes  to  indicate  those  two  chiefs  of  the  Twelve  as 
the  representatives  of  ancient  Judaism  (I). 


4G2  COMMENTAEY   ON    ST.   LUKE. 

Jesus.  The  fact  is  omitted  in  Matthew.  As  usual,  this  evangelist  abridges  tlie  narra- 
tive  of  facts.  Probably  Jesus  knew  the  master  of  the  house  mentioned  ver.  11.  and 
had  already  asked  this  service  of  him  conditionally  (ver.  12).  'Avdyaiov  (in  the  Attic 
form,  hv(I>ye(jv),  the  upper  room,  which  sometimes  occupies  a  part  of  the  terrace  of  the 
house.  All  furnished :  provided  with  the  necessary  divans  and  tables  (the  tridi- 
nirm,  in  the  shape  of  a  horseshoe). 

Matthew  (26  :  18)  has  preserved  to  us,  in  the  message  of  Jesus  to  the  master  of  the 
hcuse,  a  saying  which  deserves  to  be  weighed  :  "  My  lime  is  at  hand  ;  let  me  keep 
the  Passover  at  thy  house  with  my  disciples."  How  does  the  first  of  those  two  prop- 
ositions form  a  ground  for  the  request  implied  in  the  second  ?  Commentators  have 
seen  in  the  first  an  appeal  to  the  owner's  sensibilities  :  I  am  about  to  die  ;  grant  mo 
this  last  service  Ewald  somewhat  differently  :  Soon  I  shall  be  in  uiy  glory,  and  I 
shall  be  able  to  requite  thee  for  this  service.  These  explanations  are  far-fetched.  We 
can  explain  the  thought  of  Jesus,  if  those  words  express  the  necessity  under  which 
He  finds  Himself  laid,  by  the  nearness  of  His  death,  to  anticipate  the  celebration  of 
the  Passover  :  "  My  death  is  near  ;  to-morrow  it  will  be  too  late  for  me  to  keep  the 
Passover  ;  let  me  celebrat.^  it  at  thy  house  [this  evening]  with  my  disciples."  Ilocu  in 
not  the  att.  fut.  (Bleek),  but  the  present  (Winer) :  "  Let  me  keep  it  immediately.'"  It 
was  a  call  to  the  owner  instantly  to  prepare  the  room,  and  everything  which  was  nec- 
essary for  the  feast.  The  two  disciples  were  to  make  those  preparations  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  host.  No  doubt  the  lamb  could  not  be  slain  in  the  temple  ;  but  could 
Jesus,  being  excommunicated  with  all  His  adherents,  and  already  even  laid  under 
sentence  of  arrest  by  the  Sanhedrim  (John  11  :  53-57),  have  had  His  lamb  slain  on  the 
morrow  in  the  legal  form  ?  That  is  far  from  probable.  Jesus  is  about  to  substitute 
the  uew  Passover  for  the  old.  How  should  He  not  have  the  right  to  free  Himself 
from  the  letter  of  the  ordinance  ?  all  the  more  that,  according  to  the  original  institu- 
tion, every  father  was  required  himself  to  slay  the  Paschal  lamb  In  his  dwelling. 
He  freed  Himself  in  like  manner  from  the  law  as  to  the  day.  He  is  forced,  indeed, 
to  do  so,  if  He  wishes  Hmiself  to  substitute  the  new  feast  for  the  old.  The  decision 
of  the  Sanhedrim  to  put  Him  to  death  before  the  feast  (]\Iatt.  26  :  5),  leaves  Him  no 
choice.  This  entire  state  of  things  agrees  with  the  expression  which  John  uses  : 
dei-KVov  yevofiivov,  a  svj)pe7' having  taken  place  (13  :  3). 

2.  27ie  Sujyp&r  :  vers.  14-23. — There  are  three  elements  which  form  the  material 
of  this  narrative  in  the  three  Syn.  :  1st.  The  expression  of  the  personal  feelings  of 
Jesus.  AVith  this  Luke  begins,  and  JMatthew  and  Mark  close.  2d.  The  institution 
of  the  Holy  Supper.  It  forms  the  centre  of  the  narrative  in  the  three  Syn.  od.  Tho 
disclosure  of  the  betrayal,  and  the  indication  ol  the  traitor.  With  this  Luke  ends,  and 
'Jalthew  and  Mark  begin.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  deeply  the  facts  themselves  were 
impressed  on  the  memory  of  the  witnesses,  but  how  secondary  the  interest  was  which 
tradition  attached  to  chronological  order.  The  myth,  on  the  contrary,  would  have 
created  the  whole  of  a  piece,  and  the  result  would  be  wholly  different.  Luke's  order 
appears  preferable.  It  is  natural  for  Jesus  to  begin  by  giving  utterance  to  His  per- 
s;)nal  impressions,  vers.  15-18.  With  the  painful  feeling  of  approaching  separation 
there  is  connected,  by  an  easily  understood  bond,  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper, 
that  sign  which  is  in  a  way  to  perpetuate  Christ's  visible  presence  in  the  midst  of 
His  own  after  His  departure,  vers.  19,  20.  Finally,  the  view  of  the  close  communion 
c<mtracted  bj'  this  solemn  act  between  the  disciples  causes  the  feeling  of  the  contrast 
bclwccu  them  and  Judas,  so  agonizing  to  Him,  to  break  forth  into  expression.     Such 


CHAP.  XXII.  :  13,  14.  463 

is  tlic  conncrtion  of  the  third  part.  It  is  far  from  probable,  us  it  scorns  to  us,  that 
Jesus  bi'(/un  by  speaking  of  tliis  last  sulijcct  (jMatlhew  and  Mark).  John  omits  the  first 
two  ekmeuts.  Tlic  liist  was  uot  essential  to  his  narrative.  Tlie  second,  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Holy  ISupper,  was  sutlicienlly  well  known  from  tradition.  We  have,  ia 
our  "  Coinnientaire  sur  I'l'vangile  de  Jean,"  placed  this  latter  event  at  the  time  in- 
dicated by  13  :  3  in  that  Gospel  (ihimov  yevoutvov].  The  I'eet-washiug  which  followed 
ucci'ssarily  coincides  with  the  indication  of  the  traitor  in  Luke,  and  with  the  subse- 
quent conversation,  ver.  24  et  seq.  ;  and  the  two  accounts  thus  meet  in  the  commoa 
point,  the  prediction  of  Peter's  denial  (Luke,  ver.  31  ;  John,  ver.  38). 

As  in  what  follows  there  are  repeated  allusions  to  the  riles  of  the  Paschal  Supper, 
we  must  rapidly  trace  the  outlines  of  that  Supper  as  it  was  celebrated  in  our  Saviour's 
time.  First  step  :  After  prayer,  the  father  of  the  house  sent  round  a  cup  full  of  wine 
(according  to  others,  each  one  had  his  cup),  with  this  invocation  :  "  IJlessed  be  Thou, 
O  Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  world,  who  hast  created  the  fruit  of  the  vuie  !"  Next 
there  were  passed  from  one  to  another  the  bitter  herbs  (a  sort  of  salad),  which  re- 
called 10  mind  the  sufferings  of  the  Egyptian  l>ondage.  These  were  eaten  after  being 
dipped  in  a  reddish  sweat  sauoe  {Cliaroseth),  made  of  almonds,  nuts,  tigs,  and  other 
fruits  ;  commemorating,  it  is  said,  by  its  color  the  hard  labor  of  brick-making  im- 
posed on  the  Israelites,  and  by  its  taste,  the  divine  alleviations  which  Jehovah 
mingles  with  the  miseries  of  His  people.  Second  step  :  The  father  circulates  a 
second  cup,  and  then  explains,  probably  in  a  more  or  less  fixed  liturgical  form,  tiie 
meaning  of  the  feast,  and  of  the  rites  by  which  it  is  distinguished.  Third  step  :  The 
father  takes  two  unleavened  loaves  (cakes),  breaks  one  of  them,  and  places  the  pieces 
of  it  on  the  other.  Then,  uttering  a  thanksgiving,  he  takes  one  of  the  pieces,  dips  it 
in  the  sauce,  and  eats  it,  taking  with  it  a  piece  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,  along  with  bit- 
ter herl)s.  Each  one  follows  his  example.  This  is  the  feast  properlj'-  so  called.  The 
liimb  forms  the  principal  dish.  The  conversation  is  free.  It  closes  with  the  distri- 
buliou  of  a  third  cup,  called  the  cup  of  Messing,  because  it  was  accompanied  with  the 
giving  of  thanks  by  the  father  of  the  house.  Fourth  step  :  The  father  distributes  a 
fourth  cup  ;  then  the  Ilalld  is  sung  (Ps.  113-118).  Sometimes  the  father  added  a  fifth 
cup,  which  w-as  accomi)anied  with  the  singing  of  the  great  Ilallel  (Ps.  120-137  ;  ac- 
cording to  others,  13o-137  ;  according  to  Delitzsch,  Ps.  136).* 

Must  it  be  held,  with  Langen,  tiiat  Jesus  began  by  celebrating  the  entire  Jewish 
ceremon}',  in  order  to  connect  wiih  it  thereafter  the  Christian  Holy  Supper  ;  or  did 
lie  transform,  as  lie  went  along,  the  Jewish  supper  in  such  a  way  as  to  convert  it 
into  the  sacred  Supper  of  the  X.  T.  ?  This  second  viev/  seems  to  us  the  on]}--  tenable 
one.  For,  1.  It  was  during  the  course  of  the  feast,  eoOlovtuv  avTuv  (^lalthew  and 
Mark),  and  not  after  the  fea-st  (as  Luke  says  in  speaking  of  the  only  cup),  that  the 
bread  of  the  Holy  Supper  must  have  been  distributed.  3.  The  singing  of  the  hymn 
spoken  of  by  Mark  and  ]Malthew  can  only  be  that  of  the  Hallel,  and  it  followed  the 
institution  of  the  Holy  Supper. 

Int.  Vers.  14-18.t  Jesus  opens  the  feast  by  communicating  to  the  disciples  His 

*  This  ritual  is  very  variously  described  by  those  who  have  given  attention  to  the 
subject.     We  have  followed  the  account  of  Langen,  p.  147  et  seq, 

f  Ver.  14.  !**  B.  D.  Vss.  omit  (JoxSe/ca.  Ver.  16.  6  Mjj.  omit  ovKen.  ».  B.  C.  L. 
5  ]Mnn.  Vss.,  nvro  insleafl  of  f^  avrov.  Ver.  17.  6  iljj.  25  Mnu.  add  to  before 
iroTTifjiov  (taken  from  ver.  20).  i*"  B.  C.  L.  M.  8  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.,  etc  eavTovi  instead 
of  eavToir.  Ver.  IS.  5  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  omit  otc.  6  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  add  ano  tov  vvi>  after 
via.     !*.  B.  F.  L.  10  Mnn.,  ov  instead  of  otuv. 


464  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 

present  impressions.  Tbis  first  step  corresponds  to  the  first  of  the  Paschal  feast.  TJie 
hour  (ver.  14)  is  that  which  He  had  iadicaled  to  His  disciples,  and  which  probably 
coincided  with  the  usual  hour  of  the  sacred  feast.  According  to  the  law  (Ex.  13  :  17), 
the  Passover  should  have  been  eaten  standing.  But  custom  had  introduced  a  change 
in  this  particular.  Some  Rabbins  pretend  to  justify  this  deviation,  by  sayiug  tliat  to 
stand  is  the  posture  of  a  slave  ;  that,  once  restored  to  liberty  by  the  gumg  forth  from 
Egi'pt,  Israel  was  called  to  eat  sitting.  The  explanation  is  ingenious,  but  devised 
after  the  fact.  The  real  reason  was,  that  the  feast  had  gradually  taken  larger  pro- 
portions. There  is  in  the  first  sayiug  of  Jesus,  which  Luke  alone  has  preserved  (ver. 
15),  a  mixture  of  profound  joy  and  sorrow.  Jesus  is  glad  that  He  can  celebrate  this 
holy  feast  once  more,  which  He  has  determined  by  His  own  instrumenlalily  to  trans- 
form into  a  permanent  memorial  of  His  person  and  woik  ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  His  last  Passover  here  below.  ""ETviOvfxla  eiTEOvfirjaa,  a  frequent  form  in  the  LXX., 
corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  construction  of  the  inf.  absolute  with  the  finite  verb.  It 
is  a  sort  of  reduplication  of  the  verbal  idea.  Jesus,  no  doubt,  alludes  to  all  the  meas- 
ures which  He  has  required  to  take  to  secure  the  joy  of  those  quiet  hours  despite 
the  treachery  of  His  disciple.  Could  the  expression  this  Pasfover  possibly  denote  a 
feast  at  which  the  Paschal  lamb  was  wanting,  and  which  was  only  distmguish- 
ed  from  ordinary  suppers  by  unleavened  bread?  ISuch  is  the  view  of  Caspaii 
and  Andreae,  and  the  view  which  1  myself  maintained  ("  Comment,  sur  Jean," 
t.  ii.  p.  684)  Indeed  the  number  of  lambs  or  kids  might  turn  out  to  be  in- 
sufficient, and  strangers  find  themselves  in  the  dilemma  cither  of  celebrating 
the  feast  without  a  lamb,  or  not  celebrating  the  Passover  at  all.  Thus  in  "  Misch- 
nah  Pesachim"  10  there  is  express  mention  of  a  Paschal  Supper  without  a  lamb, 
and  at  which  the  unleavened  bread  is  alone  indispensable.  Nevertheless,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  us  from  holding  that,  as  we  have  said,  the  two  disciples  prepared 
the  lamb  in  a  strictly  private  manner.  It  would  be  dillicuU  to  explain  Luke's  ex- 
pression, to  eat  this  Passover,  without  the  smallest  reference  to  the  lamb  at  this  feast. 
By  the  future  Passover  in  the  kingdom  of  God  (ver.  16)  miglit  be  understood  the 
Holy  Supper  as  it  is  celebiated  in  the  Church.  But  the  expression,  "  1  will  not  any 
more  eat  thereof  until  ..."  and  the  parall.  ver.  18,  do  not  admit  of  this  spirit 
ualistic  interpretation.  Jesus  means  to  speak  of  a  new  banquet  which  shall  take  place 
after  the  consummation  of  all  things.  The  Holy  Supper  is  the  bond  of  union  between 
the  Israelitish  and  typical  Passover,  which  was  reaching  its  goal,  and  the  heavenly 
and  divine  feast,  which  was  yet  in  the  distant  future.  Does  not  the  spiriiital  salva- 
tion, of  which  the  Supper  is  the  memorial,  form  iu  reality  the  transition  from  the  ex- 
ternal deliverance  of  Israel  to  that  salvation  at  once  spiritual  and  eito-na?  which 
awaits  the  glorified  Church  ? 

After  this  simple  and  touching  introduction.  Jesus,  in  conformity  with  the  received 
custom,  passed  the  first  cup  (ver.  17),  accompanying  it  with  a  thanksgiving,  in  which 
He  no  doubt  paraphrased  freely  the  invocation  uttered  at  the  opening  of  the  feast  bv 
the  father  of  the  house,  and  which  we  have  quoted  above.  Ae5a>fvoS,  receiving], 
seems  to  indicate  that  He  took  the  cup  from  the  hands  of  one  of  the  nttendanls  who 
held  it  out  to  Him  (after  having  filled  it).  The  distribution  (f5(n//ep<Mrf)  may  have 
taken  place  in  two  ways,  eitiier  by  each  drinking  from  the  common  cup.  or  by  their 
all  emptying  the  wine  of  that  cup  into  their  own.  The  Greek  term  would  suit  better 
this  second  view.  Did  Jesus  Himself  drink?  The  \fron.  tmnnlr,  among  yourselves, 
might  seem  unfavorable  to  this  idea  ;  yet  the  words,  I  will  not  drink  until    .     . 


CHAP.   xxH.  :  18-20.  4G5 

speak  in  favor  of  Ihe  afllrmalive.  Was  il  not,  besides,  a  siiin  of  communion  from 
wliicli  Jesus  couiil  liaiilly  Ihiuk  of  refraiuiug  on  such  an  occasion  '!  Tiie  expression 
fruit  of  the  riiir,  ver.  18,  was  an  echo  of  the  terms  of  the  ritual  Pasclial  prayer,  in 
the  mouth  of  Jesus,  it  expressed  tlic  feelinj,^  of  contrast  between  tlie  present  terrestrial 
system,  and  the  glorified  creation  which  was  to  spring  from  the  prt/^■«(7t'«t'«m  (Malt. 
19  :  28  ;  comp.  Rom.  8  :  31  <?<  neq.).  Tlie  phrase,  I  will  not  drink,  corresponds  to  the 
luill  not  any  more  cat  of  ver.  10.  But  there  is  a  gradation.  Ver.  10  means.  This  is 
ray  lust  Passover,  the  last  year  of  my  life  ;  vor.  18,  This  is  my  last  Supper,  my  last 
day.  Tiiese  words  are  the  text  from  which  Paul  has  taken  the  conmientary,  fill  lie 
com^  (1  Cor.  11  :  20).  They  are  probably  also  the  ground  into  which  was  wrought  the 
famous  tradition  of  Papias  regarding  the  fabulous  vines  of  the  millennial  reign.  In 
this  example,  the  difference  becomes  palpable  between  the  sobriety  of  the  tradition 
preserved  in  our  Gospels,  and  the  legendary  exuberance  of  that  of  the  times  which 
followed.  Ver.  29  of  .Alatlhew  and  2.1  of  Mark  reproduce  Luke's  saying  in  a  some- 
what different  form,  and  one  which  lends  itself  still  better  to  the  amplification  which 
we  find  in  Papias. 

2rf.  Vers.  19,  20.*  The  time  when  the  Holy  Supper  was  instituted  seems  to  us  to 
correspond  to  the  second  and  third  steps  of  the  Pasclial  feast  taken  together.  Wila 
the  explanation  which  the  head  of  the  house  gave  of  the  meaning  of  the  ceremony, 
Jesus  connected  that  which  He  had  to  give  regarding  the  substitution  of  His  person 
for  the  Paschal  lamb  as  the  means  of  salvation,  and  regarding  the  difference  between 
the  two  deliverances.  And  when  the  time  came  at  which  the  father  took  the  un- 
leavened cakes  and  consecrated  them  by  thanksgiving  to  make  them,  along  with  the 
lamb,  the  memorial  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  Jesus  also  took  the  biead,  and  by 
a  similar  consecration,  made  it  the  memorial  of  that  salvation  which  He  was  about  to 
procure  for  us.  In  the  expression.  This  is  my  body,  the  supposed  relation  between  the 
body  and  the  bread  should  not  be  sought  in  their  substance.  The  appendix  :  given  for 
you,  in  Luke  ;  broken  for  you,  in  Paul  (1  Cor.  11  :  24),  indicates  the  true  point  of  cor- 
respondence. Xo  doubt,  in  Paul,  this  participle  might  be  a  gloss.  But  an  interpola- 
tion would  have  been  taken  from  Luke  ;  they  would  not  have  invented  this  ILqxix- 
legomenon  kau/ievov.  Are  we  not  accustomed  to  the  arbitrary  or  purel}'  negligent 
omissions  of  the  Alex,  text  ?  I  think,  therefore,  that  this  participle  of  Paul,  as  well 
as  Wm  ffiren  of  Luke,  are  in  the  Greek  text  the  necessary  paraphrase  of  the  literal 
Aramaic  form.  T7tis  is  my  body  for  you,  a  form  which  the  Greek  ear  could  as  little  bear 
as  ours.  The  idea  of  this  K?.ufievov  is,  in  any  case,  taken  from  the  preceding  ia/.aae, 
and  determines  the  meaning  of  the  formula,  I'his  is  my  body.  As  to  the  word  ii>. 
■»i'hich  has  been  so  much  insisted  on,  it  was  not  uttered  by  Jesus,  who  must  have 
sa'd  in  Aramaic,  Ilnr/fjouschmi,  "  This  here  [behold]  my  body  I"  The  exact  meaning 
of  Ihe  notion  of  beinrj,  whicli  logically  connects  this  subject  with  this  altiibute,  can 
only  be  determined  b\'  the  context.  Is  the  point  in  qiieslion  an  identity  of  substance, 
physical  or  spiritual,  or  n  relation  purely  symbolical  ?  From  the  exegetical  point  of 
view,  if  what  ^^•e  have  said  above  about  the  real  point  of  comparison  is  well  founded, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  avoid  the  latter  conclusion.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  meaning  of 
the  TovTo  which  follows  :  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  This  pron.  can  denote 
nothing  but  the  act  of  breaking,  and  thus  precisely  Ihe  point  which  appeared  to  us  the 
natural  link  of  connection  between  the  bread  and  the  bod}'.     The  lust  words,  which 

*  Ver,  20.   ii.  B.  L.  place  Km  ro  norripiov  before  waavrw?. 


466  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

contain  the  institution  properly  so  called  of  a  permanent  rite,  are  wanting  in  Matthew 
and  Mark.  But  the  ceitilied  faet  of  the  regular  celebration  of  the  Holy  Supper  as  a 
feast  commemorating  the  death  of  .Jesus  from  the  most  primitive  times  of  the  Cluuch, 
supposes  a  command  of  .Jesus  to  this  effect,  and  fully  confirms  the  formula  of  Paul 
and  Lulce.  Jesus  meant  to  preserve  the  Passover,  but  by  renewing  its  meaning.  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  preserved  of  the  words  of  institution  only  that  wliich  referred  to  the 
new  meaninr/  given  to  the  ceremony.  As  to  the  conunand  of  Jesus,  it  had  not  been 
preserved  in  the  liturgical  formula,  because  it  was  implied  in  the  very  act  of  celebrat- 
ing the  rile. 

A  certain  interval  must  have  separated  the  second  act  of  the  institution  from  the 
first ;  for  Luke  says  :  After  they  had  supped  (ver.  20),  exactly  as  Paul.  Jesus,  accord- 
ing to  custom,  let  conversation  take  free  course  for  some  time.  After  this  free  inter- 
val, He  resumed  the  solenm  attitude  which  He  had  taken  in  breaking  the  bread.  So 
we  explain  the  wa-^yrws,  likewise.  The  word  to  ttuttjpiov,  the  cup,  is  the  object  of  the 
two  verbs /laJwy  .  .  .  e6ojKti>  at  ihe  beginning  of  ver.  19.  The  art.  ro  is  here  added, 
because  the  cup  is  already  known  (ver.  IT).  This  cup  certainly  corresponded  to  the 
third  of  the  Paschal  Feast,  which  bore  the  name  of  cup  of  blessing.  So  St.  Paul  calls 
it  (1  Cor.  ]0  :  16)  :  the  cup  of  blessing  [euloylai),  whicli  toe  bless.  In  this  expression  of 
the  apostle  the  word  bless  is  repeated,  because  it  is  taken  in  two  different  senses.  In 
the  first  instance,  it  refers  to  God,  whom  the  Church,  like  the  Isiaelitish  family  of 
old,  blesses  and  adores  ;  in  the  second,  to  the  cup  which  the  Church  consecrates,  and 
Avhich  by  this  religious  act  becomes  to  the  conscience  of  believers  the  memorial  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  What  this  cup  represents,  according  to  the  terms  of  Paul 
and  Luke,  is  the  new  covenant  between  God  and  man,  founded  on  the  shedding  of 
Jesus'  blood.  In  Matthew  and  Mark,  it  is  the  blood  itself.  Jesus  can  hardly  have 
placed  the  two  forms  in  juxtaposition,  as  Langen  supposes,  who  thinks  that  He  said  : 
"  Drink  ye  all  of  this  cup  ;  for  it  is  the  cup  which  contains  my  blood,  the  blood  of 
the  new  covenant."  Such  a  periphrasis  is  incompatible  Avith  the  style  proper  to  the 
institution  of  a  rite,  which  has  always  something  concise  and  monumental.  There  is 
thus  room  to  choose  between  the  form  of  Matthew  and  Mark  and  that  of  Paul  and 
Luke.  Now,  is  it  uot  probable  that  oral  tradition  and  ecclesiastical  custom  would 
tend  to  make  the  second  formula,  relative  to  the  wine,  uniform  with  the  first,  which 
refei-s  to  the  bread,  rather  than  to  diversify  them  V  Hence  it  follows  that  the  greatest 
historical  probability  is  in  favor  of  the  form  in  which  the  two  sayings  of  Jesus  least 
resimble  one  another,  that  is  to  say,  in  favor  of  liiat  of  Paul  and  Luke. 

Every  covenant  among  the  ancients  was  sealed  by  some  symbolic  act.  The  new 
covenant,  which  on  God's  side  rests  on  the  free  gift  of  salvaliou,  and  on  man's  side  on 
its  acceptance  by  faith,  has  henceforth,  as  its  permanent  symbol  in  the  Cburch,  this 
cup  which  Jesus  holds  out  to  His  own,  and  which  each  of  them  freely  takes  and 
brings  to  his  lips.  The  O.  T.  had  also  been  founded  on  blood  (Gen.  15  :8  et  seq.). 
It  had  been  renewed  in  Egj-pt  by  the  same  means  (Ex.  13  :  22,  23,  24  :  8).  The  par- 
ticiple understood  between  diaB-qhri  and  h  tu)  ai/iari  is  the  veibal  idea  taken  from  the 
subst.  6taO//K7]  {Sian^e/xei'?]) :  (he  covenant  [covenanted]  in  my  blood.  Baur,  Volkinar,  and 
K(;im  think  that  it  is  Paul  who  has  here  introduced  the  idea  of  the  new  covenant. 
For  it  would  never  have  entered  into  the  thought  of  Judeo-Christianity  thus  to  repii- 
tliale  the  old  covenant,  and  proclaim  a  new  one.  Mark,  even  wlule  copying  Paul, 
designedly  weakened  this  expression,  they  say,  by  rejecting  the  too  offensive  epithet 
raic.     Luke,  a  bolder  Pauliuist,  restored  it,  thus  reproducing  Paul's  complete  for- 


<  ii.M'.   XXII.  :  19,  20.  407 

mula.  And  liow,  we  must  ask,  did  Jesus  express  Himself?  Was  He  incapable,  He 
also,  of  risius  to  the  idea  of  a  neic  covenant  tlienceforlb  substituted  for  the  old  V  He 
iuoapable  of  doing  what  had  already  been  done  so  i^randly  six  centuries  before  by  a 
simple  prophet  (Jer.  31  :  31  etseq.)  !  And  when  we  think  of  it,  is  nut  Mark's  formula 
(which  is  probably  also  the  text  in  Matthew),  far  from  being  weaker  than  that  of 
Paul — is  it  not  even  more  forcible?  If  the  expression  of  ]\lark  is  translaicd  :  "  This 
is  my  blood,  that  of  the  covenant,"  is  not  the  very  name  covenant  thereby  refused  to 
the  old  V  And  if  it  is  translated  :  "  This  is  the  blood  of  my  covenant,"  docs  not  tliis 
saying  contrast  the  two  covenants  with  one  another  as  profoundly  as  is  done  by  the 
epithet  new  in  Paul  and  Luke  ? 

The  nou.  abs.  to  tKxvriifievov,  by  rendering  the  idea  of  the  shedding  of  the  blood 
grammatically  independent,  serves  to  bring  it  more  strongly  into  relief.  This  appen- 
dix, which  is  wanting  in  Paul,  connects  Luke's  formula  with  that  of  the  other  two 
evangelists.  Instead  of  for  you,  the  latter  say. /or  many.  It  is  the  C^i^l.  many,  of 
Isa.  58:12,  the  C'^ZH  CIH  of  Isa.  52:15,  those  many  nations  which  aie  to  be 
sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  slain  Messiah.  Jesus  contemplates  them  in  spirit, 
those  myriads  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  who  iu  future  ages  shall  press  to  the 
banquet  which  He  is  instituting.  Paul  here  repeats  the  command  :  Do  this  .  .  . 
on  which  rests  the  permanent  celebration  of  the  rite.  In  this  point,  too.  Luke's  for- 
uuila  corresponds  uiore  nearly  to  that  of  the  Syu.  than  to  his. 

If  there  is  a  passage  in  respect  to  which  it  is  morally  impossible  to  assert  that  the 
narrators — if  they  be  regarded  ever  so  little  as  seriously  believing — aibilratily  mniiitied 
the  tenor  of  the  savings  of  Jesus,  it  is  this.  How,  then,  are  we  to  account  for  llie 
dilTerences  which  exist  between  the  four  forms?  There  must  have  existed  from  liie 
beginning,  in  the  Judeo-Christian  churches,  a  generally  received  liturgical  fornuila 
for  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  tSupper.  This  is  ceitainly  what  has  been  preserved  to 
us  i)y. Matthew  and  j\Iark.  Only,  the  differences  which  exist  between  them  prove  that 
they  have  not  used  a  written  document,  and  that  as  little  has  the  one  copied  tiie 
oIluT  ;  thus  the  command  of  .Jesus  :  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it"  (Matthew),  which  appears 
in  Mark  in  Ihe  form  of  a  positive  fact  :  "  And  they  all  drank  of  it  ;"  thus,  acain.  in 
Mark,  the  omission  of  the  appendix  :  "  for  tlie  remission  of  sins"  (Matthew).  We 
therefore  find  iu  them  what  is  suhstantialh'  one  and  Ihe  same  tradition,  but  slightly 
m')rtitied  by  oral  transtnissiou.  The  very  different  form  of  Paul  and  Luke  obliges  us 
to  seek  another  original.  This  source  is  indicated  by  Paul  himself  :  "  I  have  received 
of  the  Lord  that  wlii-h  also  I  delivered  unto  you"  (1  Cor.  11  :  23).  The  expicj-^ion, 
1  have  received,  udmW.'f- oi  no  view  but  that  of  a  conununication  which  is  personal  to 
hir.i  ;  and  the  words,  of  (lie  Lord,  only  of  an  immediate  revelation  from  Jesus  Him- 
self (  a  true  philologist  will  not  object  to  the  use. of  utzo  instead  of  Trapd).  If  Paul  had 
had  no  other  authority  to  allege  than  oral  tradition  emanating  from  the  apostles,  and 
known  universally  in  the  Church,  the  form  used  by  him  :  "  I  have  received  (t;(i  yap) 
of  the  Lord  that  which  also  1  delivered  unto  you  .  .  ."  craild  not  be  exoiuraled 
from  the  charge  of  deception.  This  (lircumslanco,  as  well  as  the  difference  between 
the  two  formuhe,  decides  in  favor  of  the  form  of  Paul  and  Luke.  In  tlie  slight  differ- 
ences which  exist  between  them,  we  can,  besides,  trace  the  influence  exercised  on 
Luke  by  the  traditional-liturgical  form  as  it  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  Matthew  and 
Mark.  As  to  St.  .lohn,  the  deliberate  omission  which  is  imputed  to  him  would  have 
been  useless  at  the  time  wlien  he  wrote  ;  still  more  in  the  second  centiu'V,  for  the  cer- 
emonj^  of  the  Holy  Supper  was  then  celebrated  in  all  the  churches  of  the  world.  A 
forger  would  havn  taken  care  not  to  overthrow  the  authorit}^  of  his  narrative  iu  the 
minds  of  his  readers  hv  such  an  omission. 

About  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Supjjcr,  we  shall  say  only  a  few  words.  This  cere 
mony  seems  to  us  to  represent  Ihe  totality  of  salvatii>n  ;  the  bi-ead,  the  conununica- 
tion of  the  life  of  Christ  ;  Ihe  wine,  the  ir  ft  of  par-don  ;  iu  other  words,  according  to 
Paul's  language,  suuctiticaiiou  and  justification.     In  instituting  the  rite,  Jesus  natu- 


4G8  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

rally  began  with  the  bread  ;  for  the  shedding  of  the  blood  supposes  the  breaking  of  the 
vessel  which  contains  it,  the  body.  Bat  us  in  tlie  believer's  obtaining  of  salvation  it 
is  by  justificalion  that  we  come  into  possession  of  the  life  of  Christ,  St.  Paul,  1  Cor. 
lU  :  IG  et  seq.,  follows  the  opposite  order,  and  begins  with  the  cup,  wliich  lepresents 
Ibe  first  grace  wiiich  faith  lays  hold  of,  that  of  pardon.  In  the  act  itself  there  are  rep- 
resented the  two  aspects  of  the  work — the  divine  offer,  and  human  acceptance.  The 
side  of  human  acceptance  is  clear  to  the  consciousness  ol  the  partaker.  His  business 
is  simply,  as  Paul  says,  "  to  show  the  Lord's  death,"  1  Cor.  11  :  26.  It  is  not  so 
with  tlie  divine  side  ;  it  is  unfathomable  and  mysterious  :  "  The  communion  of  the 
blood,  and  of  the  bodj'  of  Christ  !"  1  Cor.  10  :  10.  Here,  therefore,  we  are  called  to 
apply  the  saying  :  "  The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  but  those  things 
which  are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  children  forever,  that  we  may  do  all 
the  words  of  this  law,"  Deut.  29:  2Si.  We  know  already  what  we  have  to  do  to 
celebrate  a  true  communion.  We  may  leave  to  God  the  secret  of  what  He  gives  us 
in  a  right  communion.  Is  it  necessary  to  go  farther  in  search  of  the  formula  of 
union  V 

3(Z.  Vers.  21-23.*  "  Only,  behold,  the  hand  of  him  thatbetrayethmeiswith  me  on 
the  table.  22.  And  truly  the  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  was  determined  :  But  woe  unto 
that  man  by  whom  He  is  betrayed  !  23.  And  they  began  to  inquire  among  them- 
selves which  of  them  it  was  that  should  do  this  thing."  As  He  follows  the  cup  cir- 
culating among  the  disciples,  the  attention  of  Jesus  is  fixed  on  Judas.  In  the  midst 
of  those  hearts,  henceforth  united  by  so  close  a  bond,  there  is  one  who  remains  out- 
side of  the  conuuon  salvation,  and  rushes  upon  destruction.  This  contrast  wounds  the 
heart  of  Jesus.  TITitjv,  excepting,  announces  precisely  the  exception  Judas  forms  in 
this  circle  ;  uhv,  behold,  points  to  the  surprise  which  so  unexpected  a  disclosure  must 
produce  in  the  disciples.  If  this  form  used  by  Luke  is  historically  trustworthy, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Judas  took  part  in  celebrating  the  Holy  Supper.  No  doubt 
the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  favor  this  view  ;  but  they  do  not  ex- 
pressly contradict  it,  and  we  have  already  shown  that  the  order  in  which  Luke  gives 
the  three  facts  composing  the  narrative  of  the  feast,  is  much  more  natural  than  theirs. 
Besides,  John's  order  confirms  that  of  Luke,  if,  as  we  think  we  have  demonstrated 
("  Comment  sur  Jean,"  t.  ii.  p.  540  et  seq.),  the  Holy  Supper  was  instituted  at  the  time 
indicated  in  13  :  1,  2.  Moreover,  John's  narrative  shows  that  Jesus  returned  again 
and  again  during  the  feast  to  the  treachery  of  Judas.  As  usual,  tradition  had  com- 
bined those  sayings  uttered  on  the  same  .subject  at  different  points  of  time,  and  it  is 
in  this  summary  form  that  they  have  passed  into  our  Syn.  The  expression  of  Mat- 
thew :  "  dipping  the  hand  into  the  dish  with  me,"  signifies  in  agcneral  way  (like  that 
of  Luke:  "being  with  me  on  the  table,"  and  the  parallels):  "  being  my  guest. " 
Jesus  does  not  distress  Himself  about  what  is  in  store  for  Him  ;  He  is  not  the  snort 
of  this  traitor  ;  everything,  so  far  as  He  is  concerned,  is  divinely  decreed  (ver.  22). 
His  life  is  not  in  the  hands  of  a  Judas.  The  Messiah  ought  to  die.  But  He  grieves 
over  the  crime  and  lot  of  him  who  uses  his  liberty  to  betray  Him. 

The  reading  oti  is  less  simple  than  Kal,  and  is  hardly  compatible  with  the  fih. 
The  Tzl'i^v,  only  (ver.  21)  is  contrasted  with  the  idea  of  the  divine  decree  in  upiauivov. 
It  serves  the  end  of  reserving  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  Judas.  The  fact  that 
every  disciple,  on  hearing  this  saying,  turned  his  thoughts  upon  himself,  proves  the 
consummate  ability  with  which  Judas  had  succeeded  in  concealing  his  feelings  and 
plans.     The  urin  kyu,  Js  it  I?  of  the  disciples  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  finds  its  natural 

*  Ver.  22.  The  mss.  are  divided  between  kui  (T^  R.,  Byz.)  and  on  (Alex.). 


(,11 A 1'.   XXII.  :  :vU-:58.  409 

place  here.  It  has  been  thought  improbable  that  Judas  also  put  the  question  (Matt. 
5  :  2')).*  But  when  all  the  others  were  doing  it,  could  he  have  avoided  it  without  be- 
traying himself  ?  The  (hou  hiiM  mid  of  Jesus  denotes  absolutely  the  same  fact  as  John 
13  :  20  ;  "  And  when  He  had  dipped  the  sop,  He  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot."  This 
act  itself  was  the  reply  which  Matthew  translates  into  the  words  :  T/iou  hast  said. 

3.  27ie  Concci'satious  After  the  Supper  :  vers.  24-38. — Tiie  conversations  which  fol- 
low refer  :  \d  To  a  dispute  which  arises  at  this  moment  between  the  apostles  (vers. 
24-30)  2rf.  To  the  danger  which  awaits  them  at  the  close  of  this  hour  of  peace  (vers. 
31-38).  The  washing  of  the  feet  in  John  corresponds  to  the  first  piece.  The  predic- 
tion of  St.  Peter's  denial  follows  in  his  Gospel,  as  it  does  in  Luke.  According  to  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  it  was  uttered  a  little  later,  after  the  singing  of  the  hymn.  It  is  ([uite 
evident  that  Luke  is  not  dependent  on  the  other  Syn.,  but  that  he  has  sources  of  his 
own,  the  trustworthiness  of  which  appears  on  comparison  with  John's  narrative. 

Is^  Vers.  24-3U.f  The  cau.seof  the  dispute,  mentioned  by  Luke  only,  cannot  have 
been  the  question  of  precedence,  as  Langen  thinks.  The  strife  would  have  broken 
out  sooner.  The  mention  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  vers.  10  and  18,  might  have  given 
rise  to  it ;  but  the  ko/,  also,  of  Luke,  suggests  another  view.  By  this  word  he  connects 
the  question  ;  Which  is  the  greatest?  with  that  which  the  disciples  had  just  been  put- 
ting to  themselves,  vcr.  23  :  Which  among  its  is  he  -who  shall  betray  Him  ?  The  ques- 
tion which  was  the  worst  among  them  led  easily  to  the  other,  which  was  the  best  of 
all.  The  one  was  Iho  counterpart  of  Ihe  other.  Whatever  else  may  be  true,  we  see  by 
this  uew  example  that  Luke  does  not  allow  himself  to  mention  a  situation  at  his  own 
hand  of  which  he  finds  no  indication  in  his  documents.  The  ^okeI,  appears  [slionMl 
be  accounted],  refers  to  the  judgment  of  men,  till  the  time  when  God  will  settle  the 
question.  Comp.  a  similar  dispute,  9  :  40  f^  seq.  and  paiall.  "We  are  amazed  at  a  dis- 
position so  opposed  to  humility  at  such  u  time.  But  Jesus  is  no  more  irritated  than 
He  is  discouraged.  It  is  enough  for  Him  to  know  that  He  has  succeeded  in  planting 
in  the  heart  of  the  apostles  a  pure  principle  which  will  finally  carry  the  da}'  over  all 
forms  of  sm  :  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you," 
He  says  to  them  Himself,  John  15  :  3.  He  therefore  calmly  continues  the  woik 
which  He  has  l)egun.  In  human  society,  men  reign  by  physical  or  intellectual  force  ; 
and  eiiepyETrjc,  benefactor,  is  the  flattering  title  by  which  men  do  not  blush  to  honor 
the  harshest  tyrants.  In  the  new  society  which  Jesus  is  instituting,  he  who  has  most 
is  not  to  make  his  superiority  felt  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  superabundance  of 
his  services  toward  the  w^eakest  and  the  most  destitute.  The  example  of  Jesus  in  this 
respect  is  to  remain  as  the  rule.  The  term  6  vsurepoi,  tJie  younger  (ver.  20),  is  par- 
allel to  6  SiaKovtjv,  7ie  that  doth  serve,  because  among  the  Jews  the  humblest  and  hard- 
est labor  was  committed  to  the  youngest  members  of  the  society  (Acts  5  :  0,  10).  If 
the  saying  of  ver.  27  is  not  referred  to  the  act  of  the  feet-washing  related  John  13, 
we  must  apply  the  words  :  I  am  among  you  as  lie  that  serveth,  to  the  life  of  Jesus  in 
general,  or  perhaps  to  the  sacrifice  which  lie  is  now  making  of  Himself  (vers.  19  and 
20).  But  in  this  way  there  is  no  accounting  for  the  antithesis  between:  "he  that 
sitteth  at  meat,"  and  :  "  he  that  serveth."  These  expressions  leave  no  doubt  that  the 
fact  of  the  feet-washing  was  the  occasion  of  this  saj'ing.    Luke  did  not  know  it  ;  and 

*  Our  author  doubtless  intended  j\Iatt.  20  :  25.— J.  H. 

f  Ver.  20.  ».  B.  D.  L.  T.,  ycrnnOo)  instead  of  yeveaOu.  Ver.  30.  8  Mjj.  (Byz.)  80 
Mun.  omit  ev  ttj  linaueia  iwv.  ^"^  D.  X.  20  Mnn.  Syr''"^  It»"i.  add  (5tjf5f\a  before 
dpofuv  (taken  from  Matthew).     10  Mjj.,  KaOTjaeaOs  or  KadrjaOe  instead  of  KaOiaioOe. 


470  COMilENTAliY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

he  has  confined  himself  to  transmitting  the  discourse  of  Jesus  as  it  was  furnished  to 
him  by  his  document. 

After  having  thus  contrasted  the  ideal  of  an  altogether  new  greatness  with  the  so 
different  tendency  of  the  natural  heart,  Jesus  proceeds  to  satisfy  what  of  truth  there 
was  in  the  aspiration  of  the  disciples  (vers.  28-30).  The  ii/it/S  6i,  but  ye,  alludes  to 
Judas,  who  had  not  'persevered,  and  who,  by  his  defection,  deprived  himself  of  tlie  nuig- 
nihcent  privilege  promised  vers.  29  and  30.  Perhaps  the  traitor  had  not  yet  gone  (uit, 
an  1  Jesus  wished  hereby  to  tell  upon  his  heart.  The  TTeLpaafiol,  temptations,  of  which 
Jesus  speaks,  are  summed  up  in  His  rejection  by  His  fellow-citizens.  It  was  no  small 
thing,  on  the  part  of  the  Eleven,  to  have  persevered  in  their  attachment  to  Jesus,  de- 
spite the  hatred  and  contempt  of  which  he  was  the  object,  and  the  curses  heaped 
upon  Him  by  those  rulers  whom  they  were  accustomed  to  respect.  There  is  some- 
thing like  a  feeling  of  gratitude  expressed  in  the  saying  of  Jesus.  Hence  the  fulness 
■wilh  which  He  displays  the  riches  of  Ihe  promised  reward.  Ver.  29  refers  to  the 
approaching  dispensation  on  the  earth  :  ver.  30,  to  the  heavenly  future  in  which  it 
shall  issue.  'Ey(j,  7 (ver.  29),  is  in  opposition  to  vfiElg,  ye:  "  That  is  what  ye  have 
done  for  me  ;  this  is  what  1  do  in  ni}'  turn  {ku'l)  for  you."  The  verb  oia-ridevat.,  to 
dispose,  is  applied  to  testamentary  dispositions.  Bleek  takes  the  object  of  this  verb  to 
be  the  phrase  which  follows,  that  ye  onay  eat  .  .  .  (ver.  30)  ;  but  there  is  too  close 
a  correspondence  between  appoint  and  hath  appointed  unto  me,  to  admit  of  those  two 
verbs  having  any  but  the  same  object,  liaau.eiav,  the  kingdom  .•  "  I  appoint  unto  you 
the  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appointed  it  unto  me."  This  kingdom  is  here  the 
power  exercised  by  man  on  man  by  means  of  divine  life  and  divine  trulh.  The  truth 
and  life  which  Jesus  possessed  shall  come  to  dwell  in  them,  and  thereby  they  shall 
reign  over  all,  as  He  Himself  has  reigned  over  them.  Are  not  Peter,  John,  and  Paul, 
at  the  present  day,  the  rulers  of  the  world  5  In  substance,  it  is  only  another  form  of 
the  thought  expressed  in  John  13  :  20  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  receivetii 
whomsoever  I  send,  leceiveth  me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  Him  that  sent 
me."  Is  this  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  certain  sayings  of  Jesus  are  transformed 
and  spiritualized,  as  it  were,  in  the  memory  of  John. without  being  altered  from  their 
original  .sense  ?  At  least  the  obscure  connection  of  this  sayiug  in  John  wilh  what 
precedes  is  fully  explained  by  Luke's  context. 

Ver.  30  might  apply  solely'  to  the  part  played  by  the  apostles  in  the  government  of 
the  primitive  Church,  and  in  the  moral  judgment  of  Israel  then  exercised  by  them. 
But  the  expression,  to  eat  and  drink  at  my  table,  passes  beyond  this  meaning.  For  we 
cannot  apply  this  expression  to  the  Holy  Supper,  which  was  no  special  privilege  of 
the  apostles.  The  phrase,  i7i  my  kingdom,  should  therefore  be  taken  in  the  same 
sense  as  in  vers.  16  and  18.  With  the  table  where  He  is  now  presiding  Jesus  con- 
trasts the  royal  banquet,  the  emblem  of  complete  joy  in  the  perfected  kingdom  of 
God.  He  likewise  contrasts,  in  the  words  following,  with  the  judgments  which  He 
and  His  shall  soon  undergo  on  the  part  of  Israel,  that  which  Isiael  shall  one  day  un- 
dergo on  the  part  of  the  Twelve.  According  to  1  Cor.  Q  -.1  et  seq,  the  Church  shall 
judge  the  world,  men  and  angels.  In  this  judgment  of  the  world  by  the  representa- 
tives of  Jesus  Christ,  the  part  allotted  to  the  Twelve  shall  be  Israel.  Judgment  here 
includes  government,  as  so  often  in  the  O.  T.  Thrones  are  the  emblem  of  power,  as 
the  table  is  of  joy.  If  the  traitor  was  yet  present,  must  not  such  a  promise  made  to 
his  colleagues  have  been  like  the  stroke  of  a  dagger  to  his  ambitious  heart  !  Here,  as 
■we  think,  should  be  placed  the  final  scene  which  led  to  his  departure  (John  13  :  21-37J. 


(11 A  p.    XXII.  :  ;50-;3-k  471 

It  seems  to  us  thai  the  Twelve  uie  not  very  (lisiulvanlasrennsly  treated  in  this  (lis- 
foiirse  of  Jesus  reported  b}' Luke  !  *  A  saving  entirely  similar  is  found  in  Matt. 
19  :  23,  iu  a  different  coute.xt.     Tliat  of  l^ukc  is  its  own  jualiticution. 

2.7.  Vers.  31-oS.  Jesus  announces  to  Ilis  disciples,  tii si  the  moral  danger  wlii(h 
threatens  them  (vers.  ol-;j4;  ;  then  the  end  of  the  lime  of  temporal  well-being  and 
security  which  the^'  had  enjoyed  under  Ilis  protection  (vers.  ;j5-oH). 

Vers.  31-34.t  "  And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  halh  desired 
to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat.  C2.  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  t!iy 
faith  fail  not  ;  and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  biethien.  S',],  34."  The 
warning  ven  31  might  be  connected  with  ver.  28  :  "Ye  are  they  which  have  con- 
tinued with  mc. "  There  would  be  a  contrast  :  "  Here  is  a  tcmplalioa  in  which  ve 
shall  not  continue."  But  the  mention  of  Satan's  pait,  in  respect  of  the  disciples, 
seems  to  be  suggested  by  the  abrupt  departure  of  Juda'?,  in  which  Satan  had  i)layed 
a  decisive  part  (John  13  :  37  :  "  And  after  the  sop,  Satan  entered  into  him'").  The 
tempter  is  present  ;  he  has  gained  the  mastery  of  Judas  ;  he  threatens  the  other  dis- 
ciples also  ;  he  is  preparing  to  attack  Jesus  Himself.  "The  piince  of  this  world 
comelh,"  says  Jesus  in  John  (14  :30).  And  the  danger  to  each  is  in  piopoiticn  to  the 
greater  or  less  amount  of  alloy  which  his  heart  contains.  This  is  the  leason  why 
Jesus  more  directly  addresses  Peter.  B}-  the  address :  Simon,  twice  repeated.  He 
alludes  to  his  natural  character,  and  puts  him  on  his  guard  against  that  presumption 
■which  is  its  dominant  charactcii^tic.  The  t^  in  £5?;r.7(jaro"  includes  the  notion  :  of 
getting  him  drawn  out  of  the  bauds  of  God  into  his  own.  Wheat  is  purified  by 
means  of  the  sieve  or  fan  ;  aivul^u  may  apply  to  cither.  Satan  asks  the  right  ol  put- 
ting the  Twelve  to  the  proof  ;  and  he  takes  upon  himself,  over  against  Gotl,  as 
formeil}' in  relation  to  Jol),  to  prove  that  at  bottom  the  best  among  the  disciples  is 
l)ut  a  Judas.  Jesus  by  no  means  says  (ver.  82)  that  his  pi  aver  has  been  refused. 
Rather  it  appears  from  the  intercession  of  Jesus  that  it  has  been  granted.  Jesus  only 
seeks  to  parry  the  consequences  of  the  fall  whicii  thieatens  them  all,  and  which  shall 
be  esj)ecially  perilous  to  Peter.  Cunip.  Matthew  and  Mark  :  "  All  ye  shall  be 
offended  because  of  me  this  night."  The  faithlessness  cf  which  they  are  about  to  be 
guilt_v,  might  have  absolutely  broken  the  bond  formed  between  them  and  Him. 
That  of  Peter,  in  particular,  might  have  cast  him  into  the  same  despair  which  ruined 
Judas.  But  while  the  enemy  was  spying  out  the  weak  side  of  the  ditciples  to  destroy 
thcra,  Jesus  was  watching  and  praying  lo  parry  tlie  blow,  or  at  lea'-l  to  prevent  it 
from  being  mortal  to  any  of  them.  Langen  explains  InLn-pfiliii  in  the  sense  of  2'"^' : 
"strengthen  thj' brethren  anew."  But  this  meaning  of  i:T:ir7Tfjf<pecv  is  unknown  in 
Greek,  and  the  ttute  distingui-shes  the  notion  of  the  participle  precise!}'  from  that  of 
the  principal  verb.:};     This  saying  of  Jesus  is  one  of  those  which  lift  the  curtain 

*  The  ftuthor  means  bv  this  that  the  idea  of  Luke  having  written  his  Gospel  with 
the  view  of  bcliitbng  the  Twelve — which  he  combats,  of  course,  throughout — 1»  absurd 
iu  the  light  of  this  record. — J.  II. 

f  Ver.  31.  B.  L.  T.  omit  the  words  etne  6e  o  Kvpioc.  Ver.  32.  The  Mss.  are 
divided  between  f/c?,??-??  and  eKlnrri,  and  between  n-iipi^ov  and  r:Tr,ptaov.  Ver.  34 
Instead  of  Trpiv  77,  it.  B.  L.  T.  4  Mnn.  read  rui,  K.  M.  X.  H.  15  Mnn.  eui  ov,  D.  euS 
oruv.     iA.  B.  L.  T.  some  iMnn.,  fie  n-apirja?)  €iihi>nt  instead  of  a-opvr/crj  /it/  eiSevai  fxe. 

X  "What  the  "converted"  and  the  "  strengthening  ' — not  clearly  intimated  here— 
are,  we  niaj'  infer  from  the  facts.  Peter  does  not  experience  a  "  second  conversion" 
in  any  true  sense  of  the  phrase.  He  had  turned  away  from  his  Lord  for  a  time.  He 
is  turned  back  again  by  the  Lord's  grace  and  the  use  of  liumg  means.     The  expeii- 


473  COMMENTARY    ON"    ST.  LUKE. 

which  covers  the  invisible  world  from  our  view.  Although  it  has  been  preserved  to 
us  only  by  Luke,  Hollzniaua  acknowledges  its  authenticity.  He  ascribes  it  to  a 
special  tradition.  That  does  not  prevent  him,  however,  from  deriving  tliis  whole 
account  from  the  common  source,  the  proto-Mark.  But  vers.  35-38  are  also  peculiar 
to  Luke,  and  show  clearly  that  his  source  was  different. 

Peter  believes  in  his  fidelity  more  tliaa  in  the  word  of  Jesus.  Jesus  then 
announces  to  him  his  approaching  fall.  The  name  Peter  leminds  him  of  the  height 
lo  which  Jesus  had  raised  him.  Three  crowiucrs  of  the  cock  were  distinguished  ;  the 
first  between  midnight  and  one  o'clock,  the  second  about  three,  the  third  between  five 
and  six.  The  third  watch  (from  midnight  to  three  o'clock),  embraced  between  the 
first  two,  was  also  called  aAeKTopo(puvia,  eock-croio  (Mark  13  :  35).  The  saying  of 
Jesus  in  Luke,  Matthew,  and  John  would  therefore  signify  :  "  To-day,  before  the 
second  watch  from  nine  o'clock  to  midnight  have  passed,  thou  shalt  have  denied  mu 
thrice."  But  Mark  says,  certainly  in  a  way  at  once  more  detailed  and  exact :  "  Be- 
fore the  cock  have  crowed  twice,  thou  shatl  have  denied  me  thrice."  That  is  to  say  : 
before  the  end  of  the  third  watch,  before  three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  The  men- 
tion of  those  two  Growings,  the  first  of  which  should  have  already  been  a.warning  to 
Peter,  perhaps  makes  the  gravity  nf  his  sin  the  more  conspicuous.  Matthew  and 
Mark  place  the  prediction  of  the  denial  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane.  But  John  con- 
firms the  account  of  Luke,  who  places  it  in  the  supper  room.  We  need  not  refute 
the  opinion  of  Langen,  who  thinks  that  the  denial  was  predicted  twice. 

Vers.  35-38.*  "  And  He  said  unto  them.  When  I  sent  you  without  purse  and  scrip 
and  shoes,  lacked  ye  anything?  And  they  said,  Nothing.  30.  Then  He  said  unto 
them.  But  now,  he  that  hath  a  purse,  let  him  take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip.  And  he 
that  hath  no  [sword],  let  him  sell  his  garment,  and  buy  one.  37.  For  I  say  unto 
you,  that  this  that  is  written  must  j'^et  be  accomplished  in  me,  and  He  was  reckoned 
among  the  transgressors  :  for  the  things  concerning  me  are  coming  to  an  end.  .  .  . 
38."  Till  then,  the  apostles,  protected  by  the  favor  which  Jesus  enjoyed  with  the 
people,  had  led  a  comparatively  easy  life.  But  the  last  conflict  between  Him  and 
the  Jewish  authorities  was  about  to  break  out,  and  how  could  the  apostles,  during  all 
the  rest  of  their  career,  escape  the  hostile  blows  ?  This  is  the  thought  which  occu- 
pies our  Lord's  mind  :  He  gives  it  a  concrete  form  in  the  following  figures.  In  ver. 
35  He  recalls  lo  mind  their  first  mission  (9  :  1,  et  seq.).  We  learn  on  this  occasion  the 
favorable  issue  which  had  been  the  result  of  that  first  proof  of  their  faith.  The  his- 
torian had  told  us  nothing  of  it,  9  :  6.  The  object  of  /z/)  exuv  is  evidently  fiaxaipav 
(not  rrrjpav  or  jialavTiov) :  "  Let  him  who  hath  not  [a  sword],  buy  one."  It  heightens 
the  previous  warning.  Not  only  can  they  no  longer  reckon  on  the  kind  hospitality 
which  they  enjoyed  during  the  time  of  their  Master's  popularity,  and  not  only  must 
they  prepare  to  be  treated  henceforth  like  ordinary  travellers,  paying  their  way,  etc. ; 
but  they  shall  even  meet  with  open  hostility.     Disciples  of  a  man  treated  as  a  iriale- 

ence  he  thus  had  of  Satan's  subtle  malignity,  and  of  human  weakness,  prepares  him 
to  utter  and  write  words  of  warning  and  directtinn  to  his  bretliren,  on  a  momentous 
theme,  on  which  Christians  think  too  little. — J.  H. 

*  Ver.  35.  Vers.  35-38  were  omitted  by  Marcion.  Ver.  36.  Instead  of  elttev  ow, 
ii-  B.  L.  T.  4  Mnn.  Syr.  eittev  6e,  i^*  D.  o  6e  el-tev.  Instead  of  Trcj/.TjaaTo),  D.  -rrcj/.i/oac, 
8  Mjj.  (Byz.)  115  Mnn.  Ttul-naei ;  and  instead  of  nyopaaaru,  9  Mjj.  (Byz.),  the  most  of 
the  .\Inn.,  nyoparyst.  Ver.  37.  9  Mjj.  (Alex.)  10  Mnn.  omit  eti  after  ort.  !*.  B.  D.  L. 
(.}   T. ,  TO  instead  of  m  after  an  yep. 


ciiAi     x\ii    :  3r)-40.  473 

factor,  they  slmll  be  Ihcmsdvea  rt'gartlcd  ns  dangerous  men  ;  llicy  shall  see  thcm- 
6el»es  at  war  with  llieir  fellaw-countrymcn  nud  the  whole  world.  C(tm|)  Jolm 
15  :  18-25,  the  piece  of  which  this  is. as  il  were,  thcRuniinaiy  and  parallel.  The  sword 
is  here,  as  in  Malt.  10  :  ;34,  the  emblem  of  avowed  hosiilit}-.  It  is  clear  that  in  the 
mind  of  Him  wiio  said  :  '"  I  send  you  forth  nn  lambs  among  wolves,"  this  weapon 
repieyents  ihe  power  of  holiness  in  contlict  with  the  sin  of  the  world — that  sirord  of 
the  Spirit  spoken  of  by  Paul  (E[)h.  (i  :  11).  The  unl  ydp,  ami  in  tntih,  at  the  end  of  the 
verse,  announces  a  second  fact  analogous  to  the  former  (and),  and  which  at  the  same 
time  serves  to  explain  it  {in  truth).  The  tragical  end  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  is  also 
approaching,  and  consequently  no  features  of  the  prophetic  description  can  be 
slow  in  being  realized.  The  disciples  seem  to  take  literally  the  recommendation 
of  Jesus,  and  even  to  be  proud  of  their  prudence.  The  words,  It  is  enough, 
have  been  understood  in  this  sense  :  "  Let  us  say  no  more  ;  let  us  now  break 
up  ;  events  will  explain  to  you  my  mind,  which  you  do  not  understand."  But  is  it 
not  more  natural  to  give  to  hnvdv  iart  this  mournfully  ironic  sense  :  "  Yes,  for  the 
use  which  jou  shall  have  to  make  of  armsof  this  kind,  those  two  swords  are  enough." 
Here  we  must  ])lace  the  last  words  of  John  14  :  "  Rise  ;  let  us  go  hence."  The  8yn. 
have  preserved  only  a  few  hints  of  the  last  discourses  of  Jesus  (John  14  :  17).  These 
were  treasures  which  could  not  be  transmitted  to  the  Church  in  the  way  of  oral  tra- 
dition, and  which,  assuming  hearers  already  formed  in  the  school  of  Jesus  like  the 
apostles,  were  not  fitted  to  form  the  matter  of  popular  evangelization.  ^ 

III.  Gcthsemane :  22  :  39-4G. — The  Lamb  of  God  must  be  distinguished  from 
typical  victims  by  His  free  acceptance  of  death  as  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  and  hence 
there  required  to  be  in  His  life  a  decisive  moment  when,  in  the  fulness  of  His  con- 
sciousness and  liberty,  He  should  accept  the  punishment  which  He  was  to  undergo. 
At  Gethsemane  Jesus  did  not  drink  the  cup  ;  He  consented  to  drink  it.  This  point 
of  time  corresponds  to  that  in  which,  with  the  same  fulness  and  liberty,  He  refused 
in  the  wilderness  universal  sovereitrnty.  There  He  rejected  dominion  over  us  without 
God  ;  here  He  accepts  death  for  God  and  for  us.  Each  evangelist  has  some  special 
detail  which  attests  the  independence  of  his  sources.  Matthew  exhibits  specially  the 
gradation  of  the  agony  and  the  progress  toward  acceptance.  Mark  has  preserved  to 
us  this  saying  of  primary  importance  :  "  Abba  !  Father  !  all  things  are  possible  unto 
Thee."  Luke  describes  more  specially  the  extraordinary  ijhj'sical  effects  of  this 
moral  agon}'.  His  account  is,  besides,  very  much  abridged.  John  omits  the  wkole 
scene,  but  not  without  expressly  indicating  its  place  (18  : 1).  In  the  remarkable  piece, 
12  :  23-28,  this  evangelist  had  already  unveiled  the  essence  of  the  struggle  which  was 
beginning  in  the  heart  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  passage  proves  sufHciently,  in  spite  of  Keim's 
peremptory  assertions,  that  there  is  no  dogmatic  intention  in  the  omission  of  the 
agony  of  Gethsemane.  When  the  facts  are  sulliciently  known,  John  conliues  himself 
to  communicating  some  saying  of  Jesus  which  enables  us  to  understand  their  spirit. 
Thus  it  is  that  chap.  3  sheds  light  on  the  ordinance  of  Baptism,  and  chap.  6  on 
that  of  the  Holy  Supper.*    Heb.  5  :  7-9  conlaias  a  very  evident  allusion  to  the  ac- 

*  They  may  "shed  light,"  but -that  they,  when  uttered,  referred  to  these  ordi- 
nances is  not  yet  proved.  Why  say  to  Nicodemus,  "  Art  thou  a  master,"  etc.,  if  the 
Lord  referred  to  a  rite  not  yet  Insiituled  ?  P>ut  if  uiir  Lord  ivferred  to  sucli  passsiges 
:us  E/.ek.  30  :  25,  2(5,  the  igniirance  of  ^;  icodemus  was  inexcusable.  Even  so  tlie  whole 
of  tiie  conversation  in  John  (i  relates  to  tiie  miracle  of  ibe  munna,  the  words  of  the 
Jews  drawing  out  those  of  our  Lord.     What  force  could  there  be  in  his  repeated 


4T1  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

count  of  Gethsemaue — a  fact  the  more  rcmarlfable,  as  that  epistle  is  one  of  those 
■whicl>,  at  the  same  time,  most  forcibly  exhibit  the  divinity  of  Jesus. 

"Vers.  39-46.*  The  word  came  out  (ver.  oD)  includes  His  leaving  llie  room  and  the 
city.  The  name,  the  Mount  of  Olives,  which  is  used  here  by  our  lli^ee  Syu.,  may  des- 
ignate in  a  wide  sense  the  slope  and  even  the  foot  of  the  mount  wliich  begius  imme- 
diately beyond  the  Cedron.  This  is  the  sense  to  which  we  are  led  by  John's  account, 
18  : 1.  The  north-west  angle  of  the  incbsure,  which  is  now  pointed  out  as  the  garden 
of  Gethsemane,  is  fifty  paces  from  the  bed  of  the  torrent.  Ver.  40.  Jesus  iuviies 
His  disciples  to  prepare  by  prayer  for  the  trial  which  threatens  their  tidelity,  and  of 
■which  He  has  already  forewarned  them  (ver.  Bl).  The  use  of  the  word  e'tae/fjelv, 
enter  into,  to  signify  to  yield  to,  is  easily  understood,  if  we  contrast  this  verb  in 
thought  with  6L£?.0elv,  to  pass  through.  In  Matthew  and  Mark,  Jesus  has  no  sooner 
arrived  than  He  announces  to  His  disciples  His  intention  to  pray  Himself.  Then, 
withdrawing  a  little  with  Peter,  James,  and  John,  He  tells  them  of  the  agony  with 
which  His  soul  is  all  at  once  seized,  and  leaves  them,  that  He  may  pray  alone. 
These  successive  moments  are  all  united  in  Luke  in  the  ciKEaTrdcOr],  He  teas  with- 
drawn (ver.  41).  There  is  in  this  term,  notwithstanding  Bleek's  opinion,  the 
idea  of  some  violence  to  which  He  is  subject ;  He  is  drap.ged  far  from  the  disciples 
by  anguish  (Acts.  21  : 1).  The  expression,  to  the  distance  of  about  a  stone's  cast,  is 
peculiar  to  Luke.  Instead  of  kneeling  down,  Matthew  says.  He  fell  iipon  Ilis  face  ; 
Majk,  upon  the  ground.  The  terms  of  Jesus'  prayer,  ver.  43,  differ  in  the  three  nar- 
ratives, and  m  such  a  way  that  it  is  impossible  the  evangelists  could  have  so  mod- 
ified them  at  their  own  hand.  But  the  figure  of  the  cup  is  common  to  all  thiee  ;  it 
was  indelibly  impressed  on  traditijn.  This  cup  which  Jesus  entreats  God  to  cause  to 
pass  from  before  (-a/m)  His  lips,  is  the  symbol  of  that  terrible  punishment  the  dread- 
ful and  mournful  picture  of  which  is  traced  before  Him  at  this  moment  by  a  skilful 
painter  with  extraordinary  vividness.  The  painter  is  the  same  who  in  the  wilder- 
ness, using  a  like  illusion,  passed  before  His  view  the  magical  scene  of  the  glories  be- 
longing to  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

Mark's  formula  is  distinguished  by  the  invocation.  "  Abba  !  Father  !  all  things 
are  possible  unto  Thee,"  in  which  the  translation  6  irarrip,  Father,  has  been  added  by 
the  evangelist  for  his  Greek  readers.  It  is  a  last  appeal  at  once  to  the  fatherly  love 
and  omnipotence  of  God.  Jesus  does  not  for  a  moment  give  up  the  worli  of  humun 
salvation  ;  He  asks  only  if  the  cross  is  really  the  indispensable  means  of  gaining  this 
end.  Cannot  God  in  His  unlimited  power  find  another  way  of  reconciliatinu  ? 
Jesus  thus   required,  even   He,  to   obey  without  understanding,  to  walk  by  faith, 

rejoinders  if  the  reference  was  to  an  ordinance  of  which  the  hearers  conid  know  abso- 
lutely nothing— fir  it  had  not  yet  been  appomted  V     The   assumption  that  these  two 
chapters  1  elate  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian  Church  has  done  no  little  evil 
There  is  abundant    reason    for    both  communications  in  the  known   history  and 
prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament. — J.  H. 

*  Ver.  89.  6  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  omit  avrov  after  fiaffijTai.  Ver.  42.  The  Mss.  are 
divided  between  TcaoeveyKsiv  (T.  R.,  Byz.),  napevcyKaL  {hAits..),  and  irap-veyKL  (B.  D.  T.  25 
Mnn.).  Vers.  43,  44.  These  two  verses,  which  T.  K.  reads,  with  !ii*  '«=.  D  F.  G.  H. 
K.  L.  M.  Q.  Cr.  X.  A.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  Ir.  .Just.  Ir.  Dion.  al.  Ar.  Chrvs. 
Eiis.,  are  warning  in  i«'  A.  B.  R.  T.  3  Mnn.  Sah.  Cyr.,  in  several  Greek  and  La'lin 
Mss.  quoted  by  Hilary,  Epiph.,  Jer.  They  are  markeJ  with  signs  of  doubt  in  E.  S. 
V.  A.  n.  5  Mnn.  i^.  X.  some  Mnn.  Vss. ,  Karajiaa'ovToc  instead  of  K.aTa,iaLvovTe<^.  Vtr. 
45.   All  the  Mjj.  omit  avrov  after  nuOrjTai. 


(11 A  I',    xxii.  :  ;);»-4(i.  475 

ITcnce  the  expressions,  Heb.  5:8,  He  learned  obedience,  and  12  : 2,  apxriyb<i  Tii<i 
TtoTEui,  lie  icho  leads  (he  icai/  (the  iuiliator)  of  faith.  Yet  this  prayer  does  not  imply 
the  least  feeliuir  of  revolt  ;  for  Jesus  is  ready  to  accept  the  Fulliers  answer,  wlial- 
ever  it  may  be.  What  if  ualure  rises  witliiu  Ilim  aijjaiust  this  punishment?  this  re- 
puguaace  is  legitimate.  It  was  not  with  the  view  of  sullering  thus  that  man  re- 
ceived from  God  a  body  and  a  soul.  This  resistance  of  natural  instinct  to  the  will 
of  the  Spirit — that  is  to  say,  to  the  consciousness  of  a  mission — is  exactly  what  makes 
it  possible  for  ualure  to  become  a  real  victim,  an  r.lTeiing  in  earnest.  So  long  as  ihe 
voice  of  nature  is  at  one  with  that  of  God,  it  may  be  asked.  Where  is  the  victim  for  (he 
burnt-offering f  Sacrifice  begins  where  conflict  begins.  But,  at  the  same  time,  the 
holiness  of  Jesus  emerges  pure  and  even  perfected  from  this  struggle.  Under  the 
most  violent  pressure,  the  will  of  nature  did  not  for  a  single  moment  escape  from 
the  law  of  the  Spirit,  and  ended  after  a  time  of  struggle  in  being  entirely  absorbed  in 
it.  Luke,  like  j\Iark,  gives  only  the  first  prayer,  and  confines  himself  to  indicating 
Ihe  others  summarily,  while  3Iatthew  introduces  us  more  profoundly  to  the  pruyres- 
xive  steps  in  the  submission  of  Jesus  (ver.  42).  How  much  more  really  hvman  do  onr 
Gospels  nuike  Jesus  than  our  ordinary  dogmatics  '  It  is  not  thus  that  Ihe  work  of  in- 
vention would  have  been  carried  out  by  u  tradition  which  aimed  at  deifying  Jesus. 

The  appearance  of  the  angel,  ver.  43,  is  mentioned  only  by  Luke.  Iso  doubt 
this  verse  is  wanting  in  some  Ale.v.  But  it  is  found  in  13  Mjj.  and  in  the  two  oldest 
translations  (Ilala  and  Peschito),  and  this. particular  is  cited  so  early  as  the  second 
century  by  Justin  and  Irenoeus.  It  is  not  veiy  probable  thnt  it  would  have  been 
added.  It  is  more  so  that,  under  the  intlueuce  of  the  Xicene  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
it  was  omitted  on  the  pretext  that  it  was  not  found  f  illier  in  Matthew  or  Mark.  Bierk, 
while  fully  acknowledging  the  aulhenticit}'' of  the  veise,  thinks  that  this  particular 
was  wanting  in  the  piiniilive  Gospel,  and  that  it  was  introduced  b}^  Luke  on  the  faith 
of  a  later  traditicm.  iSchleiermacher  supposes  the  existence  of  a  puetieal  writing  in 
Avhich  the  moral  suffering  of  the  Savinur  was  celebrated,  and  from  which  the  two 
vers.  43  and  44  were  taken.  But  tradition,  poetrj',  and  myths  tend  rather  to  glorify 
their  hero  than  to  impair  his  honor.  The  difficulty  which  orthodoxy  finds  in  ac- 
counting for  such  particulars  makes  it  hard  to  suppose  that  it  was  their  inventor. 
This  appearance  was  not  only  intended  to  bring  spiutual  consolation  to  Jesus,  but 
physical  assistance  still  more,  as  in  the  wilderness.  Tiie  saying  uttered  bj'  Ilim  an 
instant  before  was  no  figure  of  rhetoric  :  "  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  vnto 
di'iith."  As  when  in  the  wilderness  under  the  pressure  of  famine,  He  felt  himself 
dying.  The  presence  of  this  heaverdj-  being  sends  a  vivifying  breath  over  Hinr.  A 
divine  refreshing  pervades  Ilim,  body  and  soul  ;  and  it  is  thus  onl}'  that  He  leeeives 
strength  to  continue  to  the  last  the  struggle  to  the  phys^ical  violence  of  which  He  was 
on  the  very  point  of  giving  way.  Ver.  44  shows  to  what  physical  prostration  Jesus 
was  reduced.  This  verse  is  omitted  on  the  one  hand,  and  suppoitcd  on  the  other,  by 
the  same  authorities  as  Ihe  preceding.  Is  this  omission  the  result  of  the  preceding,  or 
perhaps  the  conseepience  of  confounding  the  two  Kai  at  the  beginning  of  vers.  44  and 
4.5  V  In  eith^T  ca'-e,  there  appears  to  have  been  here  again  omission  rather  than  inter- 
polation. The  intensity  nf  the  .struggle  becomes  so  great  that  it  issues  in  a  sort  of 
beginning  of  physical  dissolution.  The  words,  as  it  mere  dro]7s,  express  more  than  a 
simph  comparison  between  the  density  of  the  sweat  and  that  of  blood.  The  worus 
denote  that  tlie  ,^,weat  itself  resembled  blood.  Phennmena  of  frequent  occurrence 
demonstrate  how  immediately  the  blood,  the  seat  of  life,  is  under  the  empire  of  moral 


4i(j  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKK. 

impressions.  Does  not  a  feeling  of  shame  cause  the  blood  to  rise  to  the  face  V  Cases 
are  known  in  which  the  blood,  violently  agitated  by  grief,  ends  by  penetialing 
through  the  vessels  which  inclose  it,  and  driven  outward,  escapes  with  Ihe  sweat 
through  the  trunspiratory  glands.*  The  reading  narajiaivovToi,  in  ii  and  some  docu- 
ments of  the  Itala,  though  admitted  by  Tischeudoif,  has  no  internal  probability. 
The  participle  ought  to  qualify  the  principal  substantive  rather  thaulhe  complem^nt. 
The  disciples  themselves  mighteasily  remark  this  appearance  when  Jesus  awoke  them, 
for  the  full  moon  was  lighting  up  the  garden.  They  might  also  hear  the  liist  words 
of  Jesus'  prayer,  for  they  did  nut  fall  asleep  immediately,  but  only,  as  at  the  transfig- 
uration (9:32),  when  His  prayer  was  prolonged.  Jesus  had  previously  experienced 
some  symptoms  piecursive  of  u  struggle  like  to  this  (12  :  49,  50  ;  John  12  :  27).  But 
this  lime  the  anguish  is  such  that  it  is  impo.ssible  not  to  recognize  the  intervention  of 
a  superuatuial  ayent.  iSalan  had  just  invaded  the  circle  of  the  Twelve  by  taking  pos- 
session of  the  heart  of  Judas.  He  was  about  to  sift  all  the  other  disciples.  Jesus 
Himself  at  this  time  was  subjected  to  liis  action  :  "  This  is  the  power  of  darkness," 
says  He,  ver.  53.  In  the  words  which  close  his  account  of  the  temptation  (4  :  13), 
Luke  had  expressly  declared,  "He  departed  from  Him  ^2.7^  a fawrable season,"  {\iq 
return  of  the  tempter  at  a  fixed  coujunctuie. 

Vers.  45  and  46.  Luke  unites  the  three  avvakings  in  one.  Then  he  seeks  to 
explain  this  mj'Slerious  slumber  which  masters  the  disciples,  and  he  dues  so  in  the 
way  most  favorable  to  them.  The  cause  was  not  indifference,  but  rather  the  prostra- 
tion of  grief.  It  is  well  known  that  deep  grief,  especially  after  a  period  of  long  and 
keen  tension,  disposes  to  slumber  through  sheer  exhaustion.  Nothing  could  be  raoie 
opposed  than  this  explanation  to  the  hostile  feelings  toward  the  disciples  which  aie 
ascribed  to  Luke,  and  all  the  more  tliat  this  particular  is  entirely  peculiar  to  him. 
Ver.  46.  Jesus  rises  from  this  struggle  delivered  from  His  fear,  as  says  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  possession  of  the  profound  calm  which  perfect  sub- 
mission gives  to  the  soul.  The  punishment  has  not  changed  its  nature,  it  is  true  ; 
but  the  impression  which  the  expectation  of  the  cross  produces  on  Jesus  is  no  longer 
the  same.  He  has  given  Himself  up  wholly  ;  He  has  done  what  He  Himself  pro- 
claimed before  passing  the  Cedron  :  "  For  their  sakes  I  sauctify  myself"  (Joiin 
17  :  19)  The  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice  enables  Him  to  feel  beforehand  Ihe  rest  l)e- 
longing  lo  the  completion  of  Die  sacrifice.  Henceforth  He  walks  with  a  firm  step  to 
meet  that  cross  the  sight  of  which  an  instant  before  made  Him  stagger. 


SECOND  CYCLE. — CHAP.   22  :  47 — 23  :  46. 

The  Passion. 

The  death  of  Jesus  is  not  simply,  in  the  eyes  of  the  evangelists,  and  according  lo 
the  sayings  which  they  put  into  His  irrouth,  the  historical  result  of  the  confiict  which 
arose  between  Him  and  the  theocratic  authorities.  What  happens  to  Him  is  (hut 
vcliich  has  been  deter  mined  (^22  :  22).  Thus  it  must  be  (Matt.  26  :  54).  He  Himself 
sought  for  a  time  to  slrugglc  against  this  m\'slerious  necessity  by  having  recourse  to 
mat  infinite  posdhilitij  which  is  inseparable  from  divine  liberty  (Mark  14  :  36).  But 
tnc  nurden  has  fallen  on  Him  with  all  its  weight,  and  He  is  now  charged  with  it.     He 

*  See  Langen,  pp.  212-214. 


ill.vi'.    wii.  :  4(;-.")i.  477 

dies  for  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  the  icorld  (Matt.  20  :  28).  Thu  dogmatic  syslem  of 
the  apostles  coutaius  substautiallj'  nuthing  inoie.  Only  it  is  natural  that  in  the  E^pistlcs 
the  divine  plan  shuuld  be  more  jMoniiuent  ;  iu  the  Gospels,  the  action  of  the  human 
factors.  The  two  points  of  view  complete  one  another:  God  acts  by  means  of  his- 
loiy,  and  history  is  the  leulizaliou  of  the  divine  thought. 

This  cycle  embraces  the  accounts  of  the  arrest  uf  Jesus  (22  :  47-.')3)  ;  of  His  two- 
fold trial,  ecclesiastical  lud  civil  (ver.  51  :  23,  SO)  ;  of  His  ciucilixion  (vets.  20-4('i). 

1.  Tlic  Arrest  of  Jesus:  22  :  47-Oo. — Three  things  are  includi'd  in  this  piece  :  l.s/. 
The  kiss  of  Judas  (vers.  47  and  48) ;  2d.  The  disciples'  attempt  at  defence  (vers. 
49-51)  ;  3rf.  The  rebuke  which  Jesus  administers  to  those  who  come  to  take  ilim 
(vers.  52  and  53). 

■Vers.  47  and  48.*  The  sign  -which  Judas  had  arranged  with  the  hand  had  for  it8 
ob;cct  to  prevent  Jesus  from  escaping  should  one  ot  His  disciples  be  seized  in  His 
stead.  Ill  the  choice  of  the  sign  in  itself,  as  Langeu  remarks,  there  was  no  rel-.nemeut 
of  hypocrisy.  The  kiss  was  the  usual  form  of  salutatii)n.  especiiiliy  between  disciples 
a:id  their  master.  The  object  of  this  salutation  is  not  mentioned  by  Luke  ;  it  was 
unilerstood.  We  see  from  John  that  the  fearless  attitude  of  Jesus,  who  advanced 
spontaneously  in  front  of  the  band  rendered  this  signal  supeitluous  and  almost 
ridiculous.  The  saying  of  Jesus  to  Judas,  ver.  48,  is  somewhat  differently  repro- 
duced in  ^Matthew  ;  it  is  omitted  in  Mark.  In  memory  of  this  kiss,  the  primitive 
Church  suppressed  the  ceremony  of  the  brotherly  kiss  on  Good  Friday.  The  sole 
object  of  the  scene  which  follows  in  John  (the  J  am  He  of  Jesus,  with  its  conse- 
quences) was  to  prevent  a  disciple  from  being  arrested  at  the  same  time. 

Vers.  49-51. f  The  Syn.  name  neither  the  disciple  who  strikes,  nor  the  servant 
struck.  John  gives  the  names  of  both.  So  long  as  the  Sanhedrim  yet  enjoyed  its 
authotily,  prudence  foibade  the  giving  of  Peter's  name  here  in  the  oral  narrative. 
But  aflei  his  death  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  John  was  no  longer  restrained 
by  the  sauie  tears.  As  to  the  name  of  Malchus,  it  was  only  preserved  in  the  memory 
of  that  disciple  who,  well  known  ui  the  house  of  the  high  priest,  knew  the  man  per- 
sonally. "What  are  we  to  think  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  if  these  proper 
names  were  mere  fictions?  According  to  ver.  49,  the  disciple  who  struck  acted  in 
the  name  of  all  (u^ovTei  .  .  .  elrrov,  shall  we  smite?).  This  paiticular,  peculiar  to 
Luke,  extenuates  Peter's  guilt.  John  says,  with  Luke:  "the  right  ear."  This 
minute  coincidence  shows  that  the  details  peculiar  to  Luke  are  neither  legendary  nor 
the  inventions  of  his  own  imagination.  The  words  tare  eus  tovtov  supply  in  Luke 
the  place  of  a  long  and  important  answer  of  Jesus  in  ]\Iatthew.  Should  this  com- 
mand be  applied  to  the  ofScers  :  "  Let  me  goto  this  man'"  (Paulus)  ;  or  "  to  the  spot 
wiiere  this  man  is  ?"  But  this  would  have  required  tare  iie,  "  let  me  go."  Or  should 
we  understand  it,  with  De  Wette,  Riggenbach  :  "  Leave  me  yet  for  a  moment"? 
The  ^(j?,  till,  does  not  lead  very  naturally  to  this  sense.  Besides,  the  anoKpiOels,  anstcer- 
inr/,  shows  that  the  words  of  Jesus  are  connected  with  the  act  of  the  disciple  rather 
than  with  the  arrival  of  the  oflicers.  It  is  not  till  ver.  52  tliat  Jesus  turns  to  those  v.iio 
have  arrived  (-p6S  roi)f  irapayEvo/^ivovi).   Here  He  is  addressing  the  apostles.     The 

*  Ver.  47.  12  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  omit  ds  after  srt.  All  the  Mjj.,  avrovi  (2,  avn.ii) 
instead  of  avrcjv.  I).  E.  H.  X.  t)0  Mnn.  S}i»'''.  It"'"!,  add  after  nvrov,  tovto  yafj 
6jf^Eioy  8f.6a>Hf.i  avroii,  ov  av  (ptXifCoo  avroi  f6riy  (taken  from  the  paiallels). 

f  Marcion  omitted  this  passage.  Ver.  49.  i*.  B.  L.  T.  X.  some  Mnn.  omit  avrw 
before  nvfjis.     Vet.  51.  !S.  B.  L.  R.  T.  2  Mnn.  omit  avrov  after  asriov. 


478  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

meaning  is  therefore  either,  "  Let  those  men  (the  officers)  go //'n/s/r/;- (the  length  of  seiz- 
ing me),"  or  (which  is  more  natural),  "  Stop  there  ;  striiie  no  such  second  IiIdw  ;  this 
one  is  quite  enougli."  This  act  of  violence,  indeed,  not  only  compromised  the  safety 
of  Peter,  but  even  the  Lord's  cause.  Jesus  was  all  but  hindered  therel)y  fiom  address- 
ing Pilate  in  tlie  words  so  imjxirtant  for  His  defence  against  tlie  crime  with  which  tlie 
.Jews  charged  Him  (John  18  :  ;30)  :  "  My  kiugdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  if  my  king- 
dom were  of  this  world,  then  would  m}'  servants  fight,  that  1  should  nut  be  delivered 
to  the  Jews. "  Nothing  less  was  needed  than  the  immediate  cure  of  Malchus  to  re- 
store the  moral  situation  which  had  been  injured  by  this  trespass,  and  to  enable  Jesus 
to  express  Himself  without  the  risk  of  being  confounded  by  facts.  This  cure  is  relat- 
ed only  by  Luke  ;  Meyer  therefore  relegates  it  to  the  domain  of  myth.  But  if  it  had 
not  taken  place,  it  would  be  impossible  to  understand  how  Peter  i.nd  Jesus  Himself 
had  escaped  from  this  complaint. 

Vers.  52  and  53.*  Among  those  who  came  out,  Luke  nuniliers  some  of  the  chief 
priests.  Yrhatevcr  Meyer  and  Eleek  may  say,  such  men  may  surely,  out  of  hatred  or 
curiosity,  liave  accompanied  the  band  charged  with  the  arrest.  Besides,  is  not  the 
rebuke  wliich  follows  addressed  rather  to  rulers  than  to  subordinates?  As  to  the 
captains  of  the  temple,  see  22  : 4.  As  to  the  officers,  comp.  John  7  :  45  ;  Acts  5  :  22-2G 
John  speaks,  besides,  of  the  cohort,  18  :  3,  12  ;  this  word,  especially  when  accompa- 
nied l)y  the  terra  ;^:iAia/)xor,  tribune,  (ver.  12),  and  with  tlie  antithesis  tuv  'lovdaiuv,  can 
only,  in  spite  of  all  Baumlein's  objections,  designate  a  detachment  of  the  Roman 
cohort  ;  it  was,  as  Langen  remarks,  an  article  of  provincial  legislation,  that  no  airest 
should  take  place  without  the  intervention  of  the  Romans.  The  meaning  of  the 
rebuke  of  Jesus  is  this  :  "  It  was  from  cowardice  that  you  did  not  arrest  me  in  the 
full  light  of  day."  The  other  two  Sj'n.  carry  forward  their  narrative,  like  Luke  with 
lilut;  only  lh\s  but  is  with  them  the  necessity  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies, 
while  with  Luke  it  is  the  harmony  between  the  character  of  the  deed  and  that  of  the 
nocturnal  hour.  Darkness  is  favoral)le  to  crime  ;  for  man  needs  to  be  concealed  not 
only  from  others,  but  from  himself,  in  order  to  sin.  For  this  reason,  night  is  the 
time  when  Satan  puts  forth  all  his  power  over  humanity  ;  it  is  his  hour.  And  hence, 
adds  Jesus,  it  is  also  yours,  for  j'ou  are  his  instruments  in  the  work  which  you  are 
doing  ;  comp.  John  8  :  44,  14  :  30.  Luke  emits  the  fact  of  the  apostles'  flight  which 
is  related  here  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  Where  is  the  malevolence  which  is  ascribed 
to  him  against  the  Twelve?  Mark  also  relates  with  great  circumstantiality,  the  case 
of  the  young  man  who  fled  stripped  of  the  linen  cloth  in  which  he  was  wrapped. 
As,  according  to  Acts  12,  the  mother  of  Mark  possessed  a  house  in  Jerusalem — as 
this  house  was  the  place  where  the  Church  gathered  in  times  of  persecution,  and  as 
it  was  therefore  probably  situated  in  a  by-place — it  is  not  impossible  that  it  stood  in 
tlie  vale  of  Gethsemane,  and  that  this  young  man  was  (as  has  long  lieen  supposed) 
Mark  himself,  drawn  by  the  noise  of  the  baud,  and  who  has  thus  put  his  signature 
Jis  modestly  as  possible  in  the  corner  of  the  evfingelical  narrative  which  he  composed. 

2.   The  Judgment  of  Jesus :  22  :  54—23  :  25. 

1st.  The  Ecclesiastical  Trial :  vers.  54-71. — This  account  contains  three  things  :  (1) 
St.  Peter's  denial  (vers.  54-G';l)  ;  (2)  The  evil  treatment  practised  by  the  Jews  (vers. 
G3-fi5)  ;  (3)  The  sentence  of  death  pronounced  by  the  Sanhedrim  (vers.  66-71). 

*  Ver.  53.  !!*.  G.  H.  R.  A.  50  Mnn.,  npoi  avrov  instead  of  e7r'  avrov.  The  mss.  are 
divided  between  eie/ri'/.v^ure  (T.  R.,  Byz.),  e^Ti'/Zjare  (Alex.),  and  eirjABsre. 


CHAP.   xxu.  :  o--i-ri.  -iT'j 

Luke  places  the  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  at  which  Jesus  wns  condemued  in  the 
morning,  when  the  day  dawned  (vcr.  GG).  This  mmniiig  silling  is  also  mentioned  by 
^Mallhew  (27  :  1,  the  morning  was  come)  and  Marli  (lo  :  1,  ntniUjhtwai/  in  the  moniing). 
Bill,  accouiiiig  to  those  two  evangelists,  a  previous  silling  had  taken  place  at  the 
house  of  Caiaphas  during  the  night,  of  which  ihcy  give  a  detailed  description  (Matt. 
20  .  o7-GG  ;  Mark  14  :  5o-G4).  And  this  even,  according  to  John,  had  been  preceded 
by  a  preparatory  silling  at  the  house  of  Annas,  the  fiilhcr-in-hiw  of  Caiaphas.  John 
docs  not  relate  either  the  second  or  the  thiid  silling,  tliough  he  expressly  indicates  the 
place  of  the  latter  bj'  tlie  -pCiTov,  1^  :  13,  and  tiie  notice,  18  :  24.  This,  then,  is  the 
order  of  events  :  Iniuiedialely  on  His  arrest,  between  one  and  three  o'clock,  Jesus 
was  led  to  the  house  of  Annas,  where  u  preliminary  inquiry  took  place,  intended  to 
extract  beforehand  some  saying  which  would  serve  as  a  text  for  Ilis- condemnation 
(John  18  :  19-23).  This  silling  having  terminated  without  any  positive  result,  had  not 
been  taken  up  by  tradition,  and  was  omitted  by  the  Syn.  But  John  lelates  it  to 
complete  the  view  of  the  trial  of  Jesus,  and  with  regard  to  the  account  of  Peter's  de- 
nial, which  he  wishes  to  restore  toils  true  light.  During  tliis examination,  the  mem- 
beis  of  the  Sanliedrim  had  been  called  together  in  h;istc,  in  as  huge  numbers  as  possi- 
ble, to  the  house  of  the  high  priest.  The  sitting  of  this  body  which  followed  was 
that  at  which  Jesus  was  condemned  to  dealh  for  having  declared  Himself  to  be  the 
Son  of  God.  It  must  have  taken  place  about  three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Mat- 
thew (26  :  59.  ct  seq.)  and  Mark  (14  :  55,  et  seq.)  have  minutely  described  it.  John  lus 
emitted  it,  as  sufficiently  known  through  them.  In  the  morning,  at  daybreak,  the 
Saiihediim  assembled  anew,  this  lime  in  full  muster,  and  in  their  ofScial  hall  near  the 
temple.  Tliis  is  the  silling  described  by  Luke,  aod  briefly  indicated,  as  We  have 
seen  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  Two  things  rendered  it  necessary  :  (1)  According  to  a 
Babbiiiical  law,  no  sentence  of  death  passed  during  the  night  was  valiil.*  To  this 
formal  reason  there  was  probably  added  the  circumstance  that  the  sentence  had  not 
been  passed  in  the  official  place.  But  especially  (2)  it  was  necessary  to  delibi;rate 
seriously  on  the  ways  and  means  by  which  to  obtain  from  the  Roman  governor  the 
confiriuation  and  execution  of  their  sentence.  The  whole  negotiation  wilh  Pilate 
which  follows  shows  that  the  thing  was  far  from  easy,  and  betrays  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  "  Ctmmunt.  sur  I'cvang.  de  Jean,"  a  stiategical  plan 
compleiely  marked  out  beforehand.  It  was  no  doubt  at  this  morning  sitting  that  the 
plan  was  discussed  and  adopted.  Matthew  also  says,  in  speaking  of  this  last  silling 
(27  :  1),  that  they  took  counsel  uare  Cavaruaat  avrov.  about  the  uay  of  {jetting  Ilim  put 
to  death.  Then  it  was  that  Juilas  came  to  restore  his  money  to  the  Sanhedrim  in  the 
temple  (tv  ro  vaC),  IMatt.   27  :  5). 

Bleek  admits  only  two  sittings  in  all— the  one  preliminary,  which  was  held  at  the 
house  of  Annas  (John),  and  during  which  Peter's  denial  took  place  ,  the  other  oflicial, 
decisive,  in  which  tlie  whole  Sanhedrim  took  part,  ri'laled  by  the  Syn.,  who  errone- 
ously connect  Peter's  denial  wilh  it,  and  which  is  divided  also  erroneously  liy  Mat- 
thew and  Maik  into  two  distinct  sillings.  Langen,  on  the  contrary,  with  many  com- 
mentators, identifies  the  txaminalijn  before  Annas  (John  18  :  13,  19-23)  with  the 
noctuinal  sitting  which  is  desciibed  ia  detail  by  Matthew  and  Maik.     Against  this 

*  "Sanhwlrim."  9.  1.  Langen  olnccts  tliat,  according  to  this  same  passage,  the  pro- 
nouncing of  si'iilence  should  have  been  deferred  till  the  second  day.  But  it  was 
easier  to  elude  this  second  law  than  the  former.  It  was  possible,  for  graver  reasons, 
to  decree  urgenc-}'. 


480  COMMEXTAltY    OX    ST.   LLKE. 

explanation  there  are  :  1.  The  entire  difference  between  the  matter  of  the  two  sit- 
tings ;  in  John,  a  simple  exaniinatiun  without  judgment ;  in  Matthew  and  Maik,  the 
express  pronouncing  of  a  capital  sentence  ;  2.  Ver.  24  of  John,  "  Annas  sent  Jesus 
bound  to  Caiaphas" — a  verse  which, whatever  may  be  made  of  it,  implies  iwo  biltuigs, 
the  one  at  the  house  of  Annas,  the  other  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  in  the  same  nigjjt. 
The  opinion  of  Bleek  would  be  moie  allowable.  But  we  should  be  authorized  in 
ascribing  to  the  first  two  Syu.  the  serious  confusion,  and  then  the  false  division, 
Aviiich  BleeU  imputes  to  them,  only  if  the  two  sittings  of  the  night  and  morning  cuukl 
not  be  sufficiently  accounted  for.  Now,  we  have  just  seen  that  it  is  quite  otherwise. 
A  minute  particular  which  distinguishes  them  confirms  Iheir  historical  reality  ;  in 
the  night  sitting  there  had  been  unanimity  (Mark  14  :  G4).  T^iow,  if  Luke  is  net  mis- 
taken in  declariDg,'2.3  :  51,  that  Joseph  of  Aiimathea  did  not  vote  with  the  majoiity, 
we  must  conclude  that  he  was  not  present  at  the  night  silting  at  the  house  of  Caia- 
phas, but  that  he  took  pait  only  in  that  of  the  morning  in  the  temple,  whicli  agrees 
with  the  fact  that  Matthew  (27  :  1)  expressly  distinguishes  the  morning  assembly 
'as  a  plenary  court,  by  the  adjective  Trdvrei,  all.  The  two  sittings  are  thus  really  dis- 
tinct. Luke  has  mentioned  only  tlie  last,  that  of  the  morning,  perhaps  because  it  was 
only  the  sentence  pronounced  then  for  the  second  time  which  had  legal  force,  and 
which  therefore  was  the  only  one  mentioned  by  his  sources. 

(1.)  Vers.  54-G2.*  Peter's  Denial. — The  account  of  the  evangelists  presents 
insoluble  difHoullies,  if  Annas  and  Caiaphas  dwelt  in  different  houses.  Indeed,  ac- 
cording to  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  do  not  mention  the  ex;iminalion  before  Annas, 
it  is  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas  that  the  denial  must  have  taken  place  ;  while  according 
to  John,  who  does  not  relate  the  silting  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  it  is  at  the  house  of 
Annas  that  this  scene  must  have  occurred.  But  is  it  impossible,  or  even  improbable, 
that  Annas  and  Caiaphas  his  son-in-law  occupied  the  sacerdotal  palace  in  common  ? 
Annas  and  Caiaphas,  high  priests,  the  one  till  the  year  14,  the  other  from  the  year  17, 
were  so  identified  in  popular  opinion  that  Luke  (3  :  2)  mentions  them  as  exercising 
one  and  the  same  pontificate  in  common — the  one  as  titulary  high  priest,  the  other  as 
high  priest  de  facto.  So  Acts  4  :  G  :  Annas  the  high  priest  and  Caia}-Jias.\  But  lliere 
is  more  than  a  possibility  or  a  probability.  There  is  a  fact  :  in  John  18  ;  15,  the 
entrance  of  Peter  into  the  palace  where  the  denial  took  place  is  explained  on  the 
ground  that  John  was  known  to  the  high  priest,  a  title  which  in  this  context  (vers. 
13  and  24)  can  designate  no  other  than  Caiaphas  ;  and  yet,  according  to  ver.  12,  it  is 
the  house  of  Annas  which  is  in  question.  .How  aie  we  to  explain  this  account,  if 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  did  not  inhabit  the  same  house  ?  There  is  caution  in  the  way  in 
which  Luke  expresses  himself  :  "  They  led  Him  into  the  high  priest's  liouse  /"  he  does 

*  Ver.  54.  10  Mj.v  30  Mnn.  It.  Vir.  omit  avToi'  after  eia-qyayov.  7  Mjj.  lOMnu., 
TT)v  oiKiav  instead  of  tov  olkuv.  Ver.  55.  !!4.  B.  Jj.  T.,  nepui-ijiavruv  instead  of  ailiavrun, 
7  Mjj.  Iti''"'i"«,  omit  avrwi' after  nvyKa(jLnnvrui>.  B.  L.  T.  2  Mnn., //fffoS  instead  of 
ev  iieau.  Ver.  57.  9  Mjj.  40  Mnn.  Syr.  Iti''>^'W"e,  (,„jj(  avTou  after  ijpvijoaro.  Ver.  58. 
7  ]Mjj.  15  Mnn.,  eipT?  instead  of  elttev.  Ver.  GO.  !5>.  D.  It.  Vg.,  tl  Myeii  instead  nf 
0  AEysii.  All  tiic  Mjj.  many  Mnn.  omit  o  before  alturun.  Ver.  61.  i*.  B.  L.  T.  X. 
some  Mnn.,  instead  of  tov  /.oyov,  rov  pnuaro:  (taken  from  Matthew  and  Mark).  8  Mjj. 
25  Mnn.  read  atjjiEpov  before  anapvT]ai].  Ver.  62.  9  Mjj.  50  Mnn.  Syr""',  omii  o 
Herpoi  after  f^fu. 

t  In  this  passage,  the  name  High  Priest  is  used  in  XYm  grnval  sense  whirh  it  his 
throughout  the  N.  T.,  and  Annas  is  named  at  the  head  of  the  list  as  president  of  tlie 
idanhedrim. 


fiiAi'.    xxii.  :  r)4-(ir).  481 

not  say,  to  the  house  of  Caiaphas  (Matthew),  or  to  the  jwesence  of  the  high  priest 
(Miuk),  hniio  i\xii  sacerdotal  puloce,  wlicre  dwelt  the  two  higii  piiests  closely  uuited 
and  related. 

A  covered  pateway  {nv}(jt)  led  from  without  into  li)e  court  where  the  fire  was 
lighted  (av'/.r'i).  The  first  denial  is  relalml  by  John  ia  a  wa}'  to  show  that  it  look  place 
during  the  appearance  l<efore  Anuns.  Coinp.  the  lepelilion  18  :  18  and  2.1,  which  is 
indirectly  intended  to  show  that  the  denial  was  simultaneous  with  that  first  sitting. 
The  other  two  denials  being  placed  by  John  after  the  siiling,  took  place  conse- 
quently between  the  appea'ance  at  the  house  of  Annas  and  the  silling  of  the  banhe- 
drim  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas.  After  his  first  sin,  Peter,  humbled,  and,  as  it  were, 
afraid  of  himself,  had  withdrawn  to  the  gateway  {nv/Mv,  Matthew),  or  to  the  outer  court 
{-poavXiov,  Mark),  situated  before  the  gateway.  Tliere,  though  more  secluded,  he  i* 
the  object  of  petty  perseculiou  on  the  part  of  the  porteress  who  had  let  him  in  (Mark), 
of  another  female  servant  (^latthew),  of  another  individual  (trfpo?,  Luke),  of  the 
bystanders  in  general  (etTor,  tlwy  said,  John).  The  accusation  began  probably  wilh  the 
porteress,  who  knew  his  intimate  connection  wilh  John  ;  she  betrayed  him  to  another 
servant  ;  and  the  latter  pointed  him  out  to  the  domcslics.  Finally,  a()out  an  hour 
later  (Luke),  a  kinsman  of  3Ldchus  (John)  recognizes  him,  and  engages  him  in  a  con- 
versation. Peter's  answer  makes  him  known  as  a  Galilean,  and  consequently  as  a 
disc  pie  of  Jesus.  And  the  third  deniiil  takes  place  ;  the  cock  crows  (^Matthew,  Luke, 
John)  for  the  second  time  (Mark).  Then  Peter,  awaking  as  from  a  dream,  at  the 
moment  when  he  lifts  his  head,  meets  the  eye  of  Jesus  (Luke).  How  could  the  Lord 
he  there?  It  was  the  time  when,  after  the  e.\aminnti(m  before  Annas,  they  weie 
leading  Ilim  lo  the  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  before  Cainphas.  He  was  just  crossing 
the  couit  which  divided  the  two  sets  of  aparlmenis  ;  and  this  is  what  John  means  to 
express  by  introducing  here  the  remark,  18  :  24  :  "  Now  Annas  had  sent  Him  hound 
to  Caiaphas."  \Ve  can  understand  the  profound  effect  pioduced  upon  the  disci[ile 
by  the  sight  of  his  Master  hound,  and  ihe  look  which  He  gave  him  in  passing.  3Iaik 
omits  this  paiticidar  ;  Petrr  was  not  likely  lo  relate  it  in  his  preaching.  J\Iaik  merely 
says  :  e-ii3aAuv  tK/.aie  (the  imperfect),  hurrying  forth,  he  wept,  went  on  weeping  with- 
out ceasing.  The  other  Gospels  simply  use  the  aor.  he  wept.  Then  it  was  that  he 
"was  preserved  from  despair  and  its  consequences  by  the  intercession  of  his  Master  : 
*' I  have  prayed  for  thee  .  .  ."  The  answer  to  the  prayer  of  Jesus  was  given 
])artly  l)y  this  look — a  look  of  pardon  as  well  as  of  rebuke,  which  raised  the  poor  dis- 
cple,  while  breaking  his  luart  with  contrition.  It  was  thereby  that  God  sustained 
his  faith,  and  prevented  him  from  falling  into  a  state  similar  to  that  of  Judas. 

We  recognize  in  the  three  Syn.  accounts  the  characteristic  of  tradilional  narrative 
in  their  combining  the  three  denials  in  a  single  description  ;  it  was  the  a-jo/iin/uonev/nn, 
the  recital,  of  the  denial.  John,  as  an  eye-witmss,  bus  giv'en  the  historical  fait  its 
natural  divisions.  But  nntwithsianding' their  roinnjon  Type,  Ciich  h^yn.  account  has 
also  its  delicate  shades  and  special  features,  rendfMing  it  impressible  to  derive  il  from 
the  same  written  source  as  the  other  two.  ^Matthew  is  the  writer  who  Ixst  exiiibits 
the  gradation  of  the  three  denials  (as  in  Gelhsemane  that  of  the  three  prayers  of 
Jesus). 

(2.)  Vers.  G3-Go.*  The  evil  treatment  mentioned  here  is  the  same  as  that  related 

*  Yer.  G3.  7  ^Ijj.  some  ^fnn.  It.  Vg.,  avzov  instead  of  rov  IrjCuvv.  Ver.  G4.  S^. 
B.  K.  L.  M.  T.  n.,  TifpiKaXvipavTE?  avroy  instead  of  nepiH.  avr.  Ewnrov  aw.  r. 
7Tfju6.  xai.      7  Mjj.  omit  avrov  after  ETtrjfjooTooy. 


482  COMMENTAUY    OX    .ST.   LUKE. 

by  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  placed  by  ihem  after  the  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  at  the 
liouse  of  Caiaplias.  It  is  the  parody  of  the  pro'pheUc  knowledge  of  Jesus,  the  ridiculo 
of  the  Jews.     We  shall  afterward  see  the  derision  of  the  Gentiles. 

(3.)  Vers.  66-71.*  Tlie  Morning  SltUng. — It  is  impossible  to  determine  to  what 
extent  the  Sanhedihn  required  to  repeat  in  their  morning  sitting  what  had  passed  in 
the  night  one.  But  we  are  justified  in  allowing  that  some  details  of  the  one  were  ap- 
plied to  the  other  by  tradition  and  by  our  evangelists.  Theie  was  nothing  in  itself 
basphemous  in  one  calling  himself  the  Christ.  This  claim,  even  if  it  was  false,  was 
not  an  outrage  on  the  honor  of  God.  If  the  assertions  of  Jesus  regarding  His  person 
appeared  in  the  judgment  of  tlie  Jews  to  be  l)lasphemy,  it  was  because  in  His  mouth 
the  title  Son  of  God  alwr's  signified  something  else  and  something  more  than  that  of 
Messiah,  and  because  the  latter  was  in  llis  lips  only  a  corollary  from  the  former.  In 
proportion  to  the  care  with  which  Jisus  in  His  ministry  had  avoided  making  tlis 
Messiahship  the  subject  of  Ilis  public  declarations.  He  had  pointedly  designated 
Himself  as  the  Son  of  God.  Hence,  in  the  sitting  described  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 
the  high  priest,  when  puiting  to  Him  the  question  :  "  Art  thou  the  ChristV  takes 
care  to  add  :  "  the  Son  of  God  ?"  well  knowing  that  the  first  assertion  cannot  be  the 
foundation  of  a  capital  charge,  unless  it  be  again  completed  and  explained  as  it  had 
always  been  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  by  the  second.  The  question  of  ver.  6^  in 
Luke,  was  simply,  on  the  part  of  the  high  priest,  the  introduction  to  the  examination 
(comp.  ver.  70).  But  Jesus,  wishing  to  hasten  a  decision  which  He  knew  to  be 
abeady  taken,  boldly  and  spontancou^ly  passes  in  His  answer  beyond  the  strict  con- 
tents of  the  question,  and  declares  Himself  not  oul}''  the  Messiah,  but  at  the  same 
time  the  Son  of  man  sharing  the  divine  glory.  The  particle  «  (ver.  67)  may  be  taken 
interrogatively:  "Art  thou  the  ChristV  Tell  us  so  in  that  case."  But  it  is  more 
naluial  to  make  itdiiectly  dependent  on  u-ke  :  "  Tell  us  ?/ i/iiozi  art  .  .  ."  De 
Wette  has  criticised  the  answer  here  ascribed  to  Jesus  (vers.  67  and  68).  The  second 
aUtrnative  :  If  I  ask  yon,  appears  to  him  out  of  place  in  the  mouth  of  an  accused 
person.  It  is  not  so.  Here  is  the  position,  as  brought  out  by  the  answer  of  Jesus  : 
"  I  cannot  address  you  either  as  juJges  wliom  I  am  seeking  to  convince,  for  you  are 
already  determiued  to  put  no  faith  in  my  declarations,  nor  as  disciples  whom  I  am 
endeavoring  to  instruct,  for  you  would  not  enter  into  a  fair  discussion  with  me." 
Had  he  not  questioned  them  once  and  again  i)reviously  on  the  origin  of  John's  bap- 
tism, and  on  the  meaning  of  Ps.  110  ?  And  they  had  steadil}^  maintained  a  prudent 
silence  !  Jesus  foresees  the  same  result,  if  He  should  now  enter  into  discussion  with 
lliem.  The  last  words  :  ?}  aTTo2varire,  nor  lei  me  go,  are  perplexing,  because,  while 
grammatically  connected  with  the  second  alternative,  they  refer  in  sense  to  both. 
Eiiher,  with  the  Alex.,  they  must  be  rejected,  or  they  must  be  taken  as  a  climax  : 
*'  Nor  far  less  still  will  ye  let  me  go." 

Ver.  69.  Jesus  Himself  thus  furnishes  the  Jews  with  the  hold  which  they  seek. 
The  name  Son  of  Man,  winch  He  uses  as  most  directly  connected  with  that  of  Christ 
(ver.  67),  is  qualified  by  a  de.=cription  implying  that  He  who  bears  this  title  partici- 
pates in  the  divine  slate.  Thereby  the  trial  becnme  singularly  shortened.  There 
was  no  occasion  searchingly  to  examine  the  right  of  Jesus  to  the  title  of  Christ.    The 

*  Ver.  66.  i^.  B.  D.  K.  T.  25  Mnn.  Or.,  anrjyayov  instead  of  ai'rjyayov.  ^. 
B.  L.  T.,  Etnov  instead  of  Eine..  Ver.  68.  ii.  B.  L.  T.  nniit  Mai  after  ear  Sa.  i^.  B. 
L.  T.  omit  the  words  jitot  ?/  a7roXv6?/r€.  Ver.  CO.  7  liljj.  ItP''^''"i"«,  Vg.  add  6e  afler 
yvy. 


CHAP,   XXII.  :  GG-Tl  ;  xxiii.  :  1-5.  4S3 

rliiim  to  divinn  glory  cont;iinc'(l  in  fliis  nssnttion  of  Jprus  is  immediately  forrrmliilccl 
by  tlie  tribunal  in  tlie  tillo  .'^on  of  God.  It  ouly  irmaiiis  to  have  the  blasplieniy  ailic- 
ulatily  staled  by  the  cidprit  Himself.  Ileiiee  the  collective  ([ueslion,  vcr.  70.  The 
form  :  i/e  day  iJtifi  1  am,  thou  sai/cd  it,  is  uot  u«icd  in  Greek  ;  but  it  is  tieciiii'uily  used 
in  Rabbinical  laiiiriiage.*  By  such  an  answer  the  party  accepts  ax  Ilia  own  affirma- 
tion, the  whole  contents  of  the  (lueslinn  put  to  Him.  So  far,  therefore,  from  this 
question  piovini^,  as  is  persisteull}'  athimed,  that  the  name  Son  of  God  is  equivalerl 
in  the  vie^x'  of  the  Jevvs,  or  in  that  of  Jesus,  to  the  name  Christ,  the  evident  progiess 
from  the  question  of  ver.  07  to  that  of  ver.  70,  brought  about  bj'  the  decided  answer 
of  Jesus,  ver.  G9,  clearly  proves  the  difference  between  the  two  terms.  As  to  the 
difference  between  the  night  sitting  and  that  of  the  morning,  it  was  not  considerable. 
In  the  second,  the  steps  were  only  more  summary,  and  led  more  quickly  to  the  end. 
All  that  was  necessary  was  to  ratify  otHcially  what  had  been  dnne  during  the  night. 
As  Keim  says,  "  the  Sanhedrim  had  not  to  discuss  ;  they  had  merely  to  a[)prove  and 
confirm  the  decision  come  to  over-night."  In  the  opinion  of  those  who  allege  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  afternoon  of  the  loth,  and  uot  of  the  14th,  the  arrest  of 
Jesus,  and  the  three  judicial  sessions  which  followed,  took  place  in  the  night  between 
Iho  14lh  and  loth,  and  so  on  the  sabbatic  holy  day.  Is  that  admis.-.il)le  ?  Langea 
remarks  that  on  the  loth  Nisan  food  might  be  prepared,  which  was  forbidden  on  a 
Sabbath  (Ex.  13  :  IG).  But  there  is  no  proof  that  this  exception  extended  to  other 
acts  of  ordinary  life  (arrests,  judgments,  punishments,  etc.).  He  seeks,  further,  to 
prore  that  what  was  forbidden  on  a  sabbatic  day  was  not  to  pronounce  a  sentence, 
brrt  mei'elj-  to  write  anri  execide  it.  Now,  Ire  saj's,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  sentence 
of  Je.sus  was  written  ;  and  it  was  Roman  soldiers,  not  subject  to  the  law,  by  whom 
it  was  executed.  These  replies  are  ingenious  ;  but  after  all,  the  objection  taken 
from  the  general  sabbaiic  character  of  the  15th  Nisan  remains  in  all  its  force. 

2d.  Tlie  Civil  Judgment :  23  : 1-2.5. — Here  we  have  the  description,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  the  series  of  niancEuvies  used  by  the  Jews  to  obtain  from  Pilate  the  execution 
of  the  sentence,  and  on  the  other,  of  the  series  of  Pilate's  expedients,  or  counter- 
manoeuvres,  to  get  rid  of  the  case  which  was  forced  on  him.  He  knew  that  it  was 
out  of  envy  that  the  chiefs  among  the  Jews  were  delivering  Jesus  over  to  him  (^latt. 
27  :  18  ;  ]\Iark  15  :  10),  and  he  felt  repugnance  at  lending  his  power  to  a  judicial  mur- 
der. Besides,  he  felt  a  secret  fear  abi.ut  Jesus.  Comp.  John  19  :  8,  where  it  is 
said  :  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying  ('  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of 
Gud"),  he  was  the  more  afraid  ;"  and  the  question,  ver.  9  :  Wlience  art  thou? — a 
question  which  cannot  refer  to  the  earthly  birthplace  of  Jesus — that  was  already 
known  to  him  (Luke  2o  :  6),  and  which  can  only  signify  in  the  context  :  From  heaven 
or  from  earth  ?  The  message  of  his  wife  (Matt.  27  :  19)  must  have  contributed  to  in- 
crease the  superstitious  fears  which  he  felt. 

Vers.  1-5. f  Since  Judea  had  been  reduced  to  u  Roman  province,  on  the  deposition 
of  Archelaus,  in  the  year  seven  of  our  era.  the  Jewish  authorities  had  lost  the  jus 
gladii,  which  the  Romans  always  reserved  to  themselves  in  the  provinces  incorporated 
with  the  empire.     Perhaps,  as  Laugen  concludes,  with  some  probabilit}%  from  John 

*  A  very  similar  assenting  affirmation  is  common  in  English-speaking  society. 
"  So  vou  may  say"  is  a  strong  indorsement  of  something  already  uttered. — J.   H. 

t  Ver.  1.  All  the  Mij.,  riynyov  instead  of  r]yayEv  (T.  R.).  Ver.  2.  10  Mjj.  60  Mnn. 
Svr.  It.  V<r.  add  ;/'/(.;.' afier  f</ioc.  J^.  B.  L.  T.  Syr.  ItP'"'i"%  Vg.,  add  mii  before 
'/ryntrn.     Ver.  5.  i*.  H.  I>.  T.  Syr.  add  xni  before  apiaixevoS. 


484  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.   LU IvE. 

18':  SO,  31,  previous  governors  had  relaxed  the  rigor  of  public  right  on  this  point,  and 
Pilate  was  the  first  who  had  confined  Ihe  Jews  within  their  strict  legal  competency. 
Tiiere  is  a  tiadition,  quoted  in  the  Talmud,  that  "  forty  years  before  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  (and  so  about  the  year  thiity  of  our  era),  the  right  of  pronouncing  cap- 
ital sentences  was  taken  from  Israel  "  (Cant.  24.  2).  Thus  is  explained  the 
procedure  of  the  Jews  (ver.  1)  who  bring  Jesus  before  Pilate.  The  other  mo- 
tives by  which  it  lias  been  sought  to  explain  it,  such  as  the  desire  to  put 
the  entire  responsibility  of  this  death  on  Pilate  (Mosheim),  or  that  of  getting 
Jesus  put  to  death  by  the  Roman  and  specially  cruel  punishment  of  the  cross 
(Chrysostom),  or  finally,  that  of  not  violating  the  quiet  of  the  feast  (Augus- 
tine), have  been  refuted  by  Langen(pp.  246-251).  It  cannot  be  decided  with  certainly 
whether  Pilate  at  this  time  resided  in  the  palace  of  Herod  the  Great,  en  the  hill  of 
Siou,  or  in  the  citadel  Antonia,  at  the  north-west  of  the  temple.  Tradition  makes  the 
Via  Dolorosa  begin  at  this  latter  spot.  The  complaint  uttered  bj'  the  Jews,  ver.  2, 
was  not  the  actual  beginning  of  this  long  negotiation.  John  alone  has  preserved  to 
Tis  its  true  commencement  (18  :  29-32).  The  Jews  began  very  skilfully  by  trying  to 
get  Pilate  to  execute  the  sentence  without  having  submitted  it  for  his  confirmation. 
The  latter,  more  adroit  than  they,  and  eagerly  profiting  by  the  turn  thus  given  to  the 
case,  declared  to  them  that  he  was  well  pleased  not  to  interfere  in  the  mailer,  and 
that  lie  left  Jesus  in  their  hand's,  that  is  to  say,  within  the  limits  of  their  competency 
(the  execution  of  purely  Jewish  penalties — excommunication  from  the  synagogue, 
scourging,  etc.).  But  that  did  not  come  up  to  the  reckoning  of  the  Jews,  who  wished 
at  any  pi  ice  the  death  of  Jesus.  They  must  therefore  abandon  the  exalted  position 
which  tiiey  had  altemptcd  to  take,  and  submit  their  sentence  to  be  judged  bj'  Pilate. 
Here  begins  tlie  second  manoeuvre,  the  political  accusation  (Luke,  ver.  2  ;  comp. 
the  three  other  accounts  whicii  are  parallel).  This  charge  was  a  notorious  falsehood  ; 
for  Jesus  had  resolved  in  the  affir:nalive  the  question  whether  tribute  should  be  paid 
to  Caesar,  and  had  carefully  abstained  from  everything  which  could  excite  a  rising  of 
the  people.  The  semblance  of  truth  which  is  required  in  every  accusation  was  solely 
in  the  last  words  :  lie.  made  Himself  ihe  Christ,  a  title  which  they  maliciously  explained 
by  that  of  king.  Thy  began  by  giving  to  the  name  Christ  a  political  color  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus.  Hence  they  conclude  that  He  was  bound  to  forbid  the  payment  of 
tribute.  If  He  did  not  actually  do  so,  He  should  have  done  it  logically.  Therefore 
it  was  as  if  He  had  done  it ;  the  crime  may  be  justly  imputed  to  Him.  This  trans- 
lation of  the  title  Christ  by  that  of  kiiig  before  Pilate  is  especially  remarkable,  if  we 
compare  it  with  the  transformation  of  the  same  title  into  that  of  Son  of  God  before 
the  Sanhedrim.  The  object  of  the  one  was  to  establish  the  accusation  of  rebellion, 
as  that  of  the  other  was  to  prove  the  charge  of  blasphemy.  There  is  a  versatilit}^  in 
this  hatred.  The  four  narratives  agree  in  the  question  which  Pilate  addresses  to 
Jesus.  We  know  from  John  that  Jesus  was  in  the  prastorium,  while  the  Jews  took 
their  stand  in  the  open  square  ;  Pilate  went  from  them  to  Him,  and  from  Him  to 
them.  The  brief  answer  of  Jesus  :  T  hou  say  est  it,  its  snrpT'isiug.  But  it  appears  from 
John  that  the  word  is  only  the  summary  of  a  conversation  of  some  length  between 
Jesus  and  Pilate — a  conversation  which  oral  tradition  had  not  preserved.  Pilate  was 
intelligent  enough  to  know  what  to  think  of  the  sudden  zeal  manifested  by  the  San- 
hedrim for  the  Roman  dominion  in  Palestine,  and  the  conversation  which  he  had  with 
Jesus  on  this  first  head  of  accusation  (John  18  :  33-38)  resulted  in  convincing  him 
that  he  had  not  to  do  Avilh  a  lival  of  Caest.r.     He  therefore  declares  to  the  Jews  that 


CHAP,   xxiii.  :  (i-lO.  485 

lliL'ir  nccusalinn  is  unfounded.  But  they  insist  {ver.  5),  and  luiviince  ns  a  proof  tho 
s.irt  of  popular  moveun-nt  of  which  Galilee  was  the  starling-point  (o pid/t f vor),  nm\ 
whii-h  spread  quite  receully  to  the  veiy  gates  of  Jerusalem  (iui  ude) — an  allusion  to 
the  Palm  Days.  It  is  to  the  mention  of  this  new  charge  that  we  may  ajiply  3Iatt. 
27  :  13  and  Mark  15  :  3,  4,  where  there  is  indicated  a  lepetition  of  accusations  wliich 
o'esus  answered  only  hy  silence.  Luke  also  declares,  ver.  5,  dial  tliey  were  the  more 
fierce.  A  second  expedient  then  presents  itself  to  Pilate's  mind  :  to  consign  the 
wliole  matter  to  Herod,  the  sovereign  of  Galih^e  (vers  G-12). 

Vers.  6-12.*  Luke  alone  relates  this  remarkal)le  circumstance.  By  this  step  the 
CiBver  Roman  gained  two  ends  at  once.  First  he  got  rid  of  the  business  which  was 
imposed  on  him,  and  then  he  took  the  first  step  ton  aid  a  reconciliation  with  Ilerod 
(ver.  12).  The  cause  of  thrir  quarrel  had  probably  been  some  conflict  of  jurisdic- 
tion. In  that  case,  was  not  the  best  means  of  soldering  up  the  quarrel  to  concede  to 
him  a  right  of  jurisdiction  within  the  very  city  of  Jerusalem?  Herod  had  come  to 
the  capital,  like  Pilate,  on  account  of  tho  feast  ;  ordinarily  he  lived  in  the  old  castle 
of  the  Asmonean  kings,  on  the  hill  of  Zion.  Jesus  was  to  him  what  a  skilful  juggler 
is  to  a  seated  court — an  object  of  curiosity.  But  Jesus  did  not  lend  Himself  to  such 
a  part ;  He  had  neither  woids  nor  miracles  for  a  man  so  disposed,  in  whom,  besides. 
He  saw  with  horror  the  murderer  of  John  the  Baptist.  Before  this  personage,  a 
monstrous  mi.xture  of  bloody  levity  and  sombre  sujievstilion.  He  maintained  a  silence 
which  even  the  accusations  of  the  Sauhediim  (ver.  10)  could  not  lead  Him  to  break. 
Herod,  wounded  and  humiliated,  took  vengeance  on  this  conduct  bj^  contempt.  The 
expression,  a  gorgeous  rohc  (ver.  11),  denotes  not  a  purple  garment,  but  a  white  man- 
tle, like  that  worn  by  Jewish  kings  and  Roman  grandees  on  high  occasions.!  We 
cannot  see  in  this,  with  Riggenbach,  a  contemptuous  allusion  to  the  while  robe  of  the 
hii;h  priest.  It  was  a  parody  of  the  royal  claims  uf  Jesus,  but  at  the  same  time  an 
indirect  declaration  of  Ilis  innocence,  at  least  in  a  political  puint  of  view.  The 
a-paTEVfiara,  soldiers  of  Ilerod,  can  only  mean  his  attendants,  his  body-guard,  who 
were  allowed  to  accompany  him  in  the  capital. 

Vers.  13-19.  t  Kot  having  succetded  in  this  way,  Pilate  finds  himself  reduced 
to  seek  another  expedient.  Two  present  themselves  to  his  mind:  first,  the  ciTer  to 
chastise  .Jesus — that  is  to  say,  to  scourge  Him  ;  then  the  proposition  to  release  Him  as 
a  pardoned  malefactor,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  feast.  The  pt-nnlly  of  scourg- 
ing strictly  formed  i>art  of  the  punishment  of  crucifixion  ;  it  was  the  imperative  pre- 
liminary. Jerome  saj's  (in  ^latt.  27)  :  Scie?i(hi))i  est  Plldtum  romanis  legibus  minis- 
traise,  qmbus  sancitum  erat  ui  qui  crucifigerttur,  priusjiagellis  verberetur  (Langen,  p. 

*  Ver.  6.  ».  B.  L.  T.  omit  Valu.ainv 'beXore  ETvepurTjaev.  Ver.  8.  B.  D.  L.  T.,  e$ 
iKnvuv  xpovuv  instead  of  e^  mavnv  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  or  e?  ikuvov  xpi^^''^  (4  Mjj.  Syr.  ItP'"- 
'lue  )  8  Mjj.  some  ^Inn.  Svr''"^  omit  Tro/.la  after  aKoveiv.  Ver.  11.  !*.  B.  L.  T. 
omit  nvTov  after  nepii^a'/.uv.  i4*  L.  R.,  ene/iipev  insleadoi aveTieuH>ev.  Ver.  12.  i*.  B.  L. 
T.,  avTovi  instead  of  eavrovf. 

+  Langen,  p   270,  note  (Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  ii^.  1.  1  ;  Tacitus,  Hist.  ii.  89). 

I  Ver.  14.  !!i.  A..  L.  A.  some  >Inn.  omit  kcit'  before  nvrov.  Ver.  15.  i^.  B.  K.  L. 
M.  T.  n.  several  Mun.,  nvi-Euipev  yap  avrov  Trpni  iniox  instead  of  av£Teui{'a  jap  vfia? 
TTuoi  avrov,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  12  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  ItP'"i«i"''^  Vg.  and 
Syr.  (which  substitutes  avrov  for  v/iai).  Ver.  17.  A.  B.  K.  L.  T.  FT.  a  Fold.  Sah. 
omit  this  ver'-e.  D.  Syr^"^  place  it  after  ver.  19.  Ver.  18.  i*.  B.  L.  T.  2  Mnn., 
nveapayov  instead  of  avrKpaiav.  Ver.  19.  B.  L.  T.,  (S/r/Oeti  instead  of  jieS/rj/ievog.  ». 
B.  L.  T.  X.,  Ev  rq  <px''/.aKti  instead  of  etc  <*>v/aK7;v. 


48G  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

281).  This  previous  punislimenl  was  often  moital.*  lu  this  case  Pilate  offered  it  to 
the  Jews  in  place  of  ciucifixion,  uot  as  the  fiist  act  of  that  puuishrneut.  He  hoped 
that  at  the  sight  of  this  the  more  moderate  would  be  salis^fied,  and  that  the  last  act 
would  not  be  demanded  of  him.  But  to  secure  the  ceitainty  of  this  meaus  he  com- 
bines it  with  the  other.  The  time  was  come  for  releasing  a  state  prisoner,  as  was 
common  at  the  feast.  He  reckons  on  the  numerous  adherents  of  Jesus  who  had  wel- 
comed Him  with  acclumaliuns  on  Palm  Diiy,  and  whose  voices,  in  spite  of  the  rulers, 
would  make  themselves  heard  in  demanding  His  release. 

At  ver.  15,  Tischeudorf  prefers  the  Alex,  reading  :  "  For  he  sent  him  to  us,"  in- 
stead of,  "  For  I  sent  you  to  him."  But  this  reading  has  arisen  from  an  entire  mis- 
understanding of  the  following  phrase.  It  was  translated,  "  And,  lo  !  nothing  is  done 
unto  him  (at  Herod's  court)  to  show  that  he  has  been  judged  worthy  of  death  ;" 
while  the  Greek  expression  signifies,  according  to  a  well-known  construction,  "  And, 
]i) !  he  is  found  to  have  done  nothing  (He,  Jesus)  which  was  worthy  of  death  [in 
Herod's  conviction  as  well  as  in  mine]."  The  received  reading  is  therefore  indisput- 
ably the  true  one.  Pilate  declares  aloud  that  the  result  of  this  whole  series  of  in- 
quiries has  been  to  establish  the  innocence  of  Jesus.  But  why  in  this  case  conclude, 
as  he  does  {therefore,  ver.  16),  by  offering  to  scourge  Ilim,  thereafter  to  release  Him  V 
It  was  already  a  denial  of  justice  to  send  Jesus  to  Herod  after  having  acknowledged 
His  innocence  ;  it  is  a  more  flagrant  one  still  to  dec;ee  against  Him,  without  any 
alleged  reason,  the  penalty  of  scourging.  This  first  concession  betrays  his  weakness, 
and  gi/es  liim  over  beforehand  to  his  adversaries,  who  are  more  decided  than  he.  If 
ver.  17  is  aiUhentic,  and  if  it  is  t'>  be  put  here  (see  the  critical  note),  the  most  natural 
conueclion  between  vers.  16  and  17  is  this  :  "  I  will  release  him  ;  for  I  am  even  under 
obligation  to  release  unto  you  a  prisoner."  Pilate  affects  to  have  no  doubt  that,  when 
the  liberation  of  a  prisoner  is  offered  to  the  people,  they  will  claim  Jesus.  But  if 
this  verse  is  rejected  as  unauthentic,  we  must  recognize  in  the  aTxoKvnu,  I icill  release, 
ver.  16,  a  positive  allusion  to  the  custom  of  releasing  a  prisoner.  At  ver.  18,  the 
Jews,  understanding  in  a  moment  Pilate's  idea,  would  reply  lo  him  by  pulling  them- 
selves at  his  view-point.  But  this  exphmation  is  somewhat  forced,  and  the  omission 
of  ver.  17  may  have  arisen  in  the  Alex,  from  confounding  the  two  AN  .  .  . 
which  begin  the  two  verses  17  and  18.  In  John,  Pilate,  while  reminding  the  people 
of  this  custom,  directly  offers  them  the  deliveiance  of  .lesus.  Tliis  was  probably  tlie 
real  course  of  events.  In  Matthew,  he  puts  the  alternative  between  Jesus  and  Barah- 
has,  which  is  less  natural.  In  Mark,  it  is  the  people  who,  interrupting  the  deliberation 
relative  to  Jesus,  all  at  once  claim  the  liberation  of  a  [uisoner,  which  is  less  natural 
still.  The  origin  of  the  custom  here  mentioned  is  not  known.  It  is  far  from  prob- 
able that  it  was  introduced  by  the  Romans.  Langen  justly  quotes  against  this  sup- 
position the  words  of  Pilate  (John  18  :  iJ9),  '*  Ye  have  a  custom."  Perhaps  it  was  a 
memorial  of  the  great  national  deliveran(.'e,  of  the  escape  from  Egypt,  which  was  cel- 
ebrated at  the  feast  of  Passover.  The  Romans,  who  took  a  pride  in  respecting  the 
usages  of  conquered  people  s,  had  fallen  in  with  this  custom  . 

But  before  Pilate  had  carried  oilt  the  scourging,  the  people  had  already  made  their 
choice.  This  choice  is  presented,  ver.  18,  asuuimimous  and  spontaneous  {■rzafj.-'ATj'Jei), 
while  Matthew  and  Mark,  more  accurate  on  tiie  point,  ascribe  it  lo  the  pressure 
exercised  by  the  rulers  and  their  underlings,   which  harmonizes  with  John  19  ■  6. 

*  Cicero,  in  Flaccum,  §  10. 


CHAP.   XXIII.  :  19-25.  487 

Mark  and  Luke  characterize  Barabbas  as  one  who  had  been  guilty  of  murder  in  an 
insurrection  ;  lie  was  therefore  a  represenhilive  of  the  same  revolutionary  spirit  of 
whicli  (he  tSanhedtim  were  accusing  Jesus.  To  give  up  Jesus  to  the  cross,  and  to  de- 
mand Barabbas,  was  to  do  at  the  same  moment  two  significant  acts.  It  was  to  repu- 
diate the  spirit  of  sulimission  and  faith  whicli  had  distinguished  the  whole  work  of 
Jesus,  and  which  might  have  saved  the  people.  It  was  at  Die  same  time  to  let  loose 
the  spirit  ot  revolt  which  was  to  carry  them  to  their  destruction.  The  name  Baiabbas 
comes  from  -^n  ^^^  N2N*  (^'"^  ^f  H^f f'^ither).  This  name  signifies,  according  to  most, 
son  of  Abba,  ot  God.  Iveim  imderstauds  son  of  the  Rabbin,  taken  as  spiritual  father. 
The  name  Jesus,  which  is  also  given  to  this  man  in  4  Mnn.  of  ]\Iatthew,  and  whicli 
■was  found,  according  to  tiie  Fathers,  in  a  considerable  numlierof  mss.,  was  probably 
added  to  the  name  of  Barabbas,  with  the  desire  to  render  the  parallelism  the  more 
striking. 

Tiie  liberation  of  Barabbas  was  a  judicial  act  ;  to  carry  it  out,  Pilate  must  ascend 
his  judgment-seat.  It  was  pnjbably  at  this  moment  that  the  message  of  his  wife,  of 
which  Matthew  speaks  (ver.  19,  '"  When  he  was  set  down  on  the  judgment-seat  "), 
was  transmitted  to  him. 

Vers.  2U-2o.*  This  manoeuvre  having  failed,  Pilate  returns  to  the  expedient  on 
which  he  reckons  most  :  he  will  trj'  to  satisfy  the  anger  of  the  most  infuriated,  and 
to  excite  the  pity  of  those  who  are  yet  capable  of  this  feeling,  by  a  beginning  of  pun- 
ishment. The  real  contents  of  the  declaration  announced  by  the  7Tpoae0(JvTj(ye,  he  spake 
again  to  them,  ver.  20,  are  not  expressed  till  the  end  of  ver.  22  :  "  I  will  therefore 
cliastise  him,  and  lot  him  go."  But  Pilate  is  interinpted  before  having  uttered  his 
whole  thought  by  the  cries  of  the  Jews,  ver.  21  ;  his  answer,  ver.  22,  breathes  indig- 
nation. Hy  {\\e  Tpirov ,  for  tlie  third  ^i/ne,  allusion  is  made  to  his  two  previous  dec- 
larations, ver.  4  and  vers.  14,  15.  Tap  btars  on  the  idea  of  crucifixion,  ver.  21  : 
"  Crucify  him  ?  For  he  has  done  .  .  .  what  evil?"  But  this  indignation  of 
Pilate  is  only  an  example  of  cowardice.  "Why  scourge  Him  whom  he  acknowledges 
to  be  innocent  ?  This  first  weakness  is  appreciated  and  immediately  turned  to  ac- 
count by  the  Jews,  f  It  is  here,  in  Luke's  account,  that  the  scourging  should  be 
placed.  John,  who  has  left  the  most  vivid  recital  of  this  scene,  places  it  exactly  at 
this  moment.  According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  scoutging  did  not  take  place  till 
after  the  sentence  was  pronounced,  agreeably  to  custom,  and  as  the  first  stage  of 
crucifixion.  Ver.  23  summarizes  a  whole  series  of  negotiations,  the  various  phases  of 
which  John  alone  has  preserved  to  us  (19  ;  1-12).  Jesus,  covered  with  blood,  appears 
before  the  people.  But  the  rulers  and  their  partii^ans  succeed  in  extinguishing  the 
voice  of  pity  in  the  multitude.  Pilate,  who  reckoned  on  the  effect  of  the  spectacle, 
is  shocked  at  this  excess  of  cruelt}'.  He  authorizes  them  to  carry  out  the  crucifixion 
themselves  at  their  own  risk  ;  they  decline.  They  understand  that  it  is  he  who 
serves  as  their  executioner.  To  gain  him  there  remain  yet  two  ways.  All  at  once 
changing  their  tactics,  they  demand  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  blasphemer  :  "  He  made 

*  Ver.  20.  6  Mjj.  2  Mnn.  Vss.,  8e  instead  of  ovv.  ».  B.  L.  T.  2  Mnn.  add 
avroi?  after  itpo6F.q)c..v7]6£v.  Ver.  21.  i*.  B.  D.  F"  Or.,  dravpov,  6ravpov,  instead 
of  6r<xvpco6ov,  6Tavpoo6ov.  Ver.  23.  4*.  B.  L.  130  Man.  lip'en't''"^  omit  xai  vcoy 
apxi£(J£(t)y  after  avTojy.  Ver.  25.  16  Mjj.  many  Mnn.  omit  avroti  after  aTceXvCey 
Se. 

t  In  the  "  Scripture  Characters"  of  the  late  Dr.  Candlish,  of  Edini)urgh,  tiiree 
chapters  of  singularly  clear  analysis  are  devoted  to  Pilate.  They  well  deserve  study. 
—J.  H. 


488  COMMEXTAIIY    OiS"   ST.   LUKE. 

himself  the  Son  of  God."  But  on  hearing  this  accusation,  Pilate  shows  himself  still 
less  disposed  to  condemn  Jesus,  whose  person  had  already  inspired  him  with  a  mys- 
terious fear.  The  Jews  (hen  determine  to  employ  the  weapon  which  they  had  ktpt 
to  the  last,  prohably  as  the  most  ignoble  in  their  own  eyes,  that  of  personal  intimida- 
tion. They  threaten  him  with  an  accusation  before  the  emperor,  as  having  taken  a 
rebel  under  his  protection.  Pilale  knows  how  ready  Tiberius  will  be  to  welcome  such 
a  charge.  On  hearing  this  thieat,  he  understands  at  once,  that  if  he  wishes  to  sa\e 
his  place  and  life,  he  has  no  alternative  but  to  yield.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  four 
narratives  again  vmite.  Pilate  for  the  second  time  ascends  the  judgment-seat,  which 
was  set  up  in  a  raised  place  in  the  open  square  situated  before  the  pia?lorium.  He 
washes  his  hands  (Matthew),  and  again  declining  all  participation  in  the  judicial  mur- 
der which  is  about  to  be  committed,  he  delivers  Jesus  over  to  His  enemies. 

Ver.  y5  of  Luke  is  the  only  passage  of  this  narrative  where  the  feelings  of  the  his- 
torian break  through  the  objectivity  of  the  narrative.  The  details  repeated  here  (ver. 
19)  regarding  the  character  of  Barabbas  bring  into  prominence  all  that  is  odious  in 
the  choice  of  Israel ;  and  the  woids,  lie  delivered  Ilim  to  their  icill,  all  the  cowaidice 
of  the  judge  who  thus  declines  to  act  as  the  protector  of  innocence.  Matthew  and 
3Iark  here  narrate  the  abuse  which  Jesus  had  to  suffer  from  the  Roman  soldiers  ;  it 
is  the  scene  related  John  19  :  1-8,  and  which  should  be  placed  before  the  scourging. 
The  scene  of  it,  according  to  Maik,  was  the  inner  court  of  the  prretorium,  which 
agrees  with  John.  It  was  less  the  mockery  of  Jesus  Himself  than  of  the  Jewish 
3lessiali  in  His  person. 

3.  The  Crucifinon  of  Jefsiis  :  23  :  26-46.— John  indicates,  as  the  time  when  Pilate 
pronounced  sentence,  the  sixth  iiour  ;  Mark,  as  thehour  at  wbich  Jesus  was  ciucilied, 
the  third.  According  to  the  ordinary  mode  of  reckoning  time  among  the  ancients 
(starting  from  six  o'clock  in  the  morning),  it  would  be  midday  with  the  first,  nine 
o'clock  in  the  morning  with  the  second.  The  contradiction  seems  flagrant  :  Jesus 
condemned  at  noon,  according  to  John,  and  crucified  at  nine  according  to  Mark  ! 
Langen  brings  new  arguments  to  support  an  attempt  at  harmony  which  has  often 
been  made — that  John  reckoned  the  hours  as  we  do,  that  is  to  say,  starting  from 
midnight.  The  sixth  hour  would  then  be  with  him  six  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
which  would  harmonize  a  little  better  with  Maik's  date,  the  interval  between  six  and 
nine  o'clock  being  employed  in  preparations  for  the  crucifixion.*  But  is  it  probable 
that  John  adopted  a  mode  of  reckoning  different  from  that  which  was  generally  in 
use,  and   that  without  in  the  least  apprising  his  readers?!     We  incline  rather  to 

■^  Langen  rests  his  argument  on  three  passages,  one  from  the  "  Natural  History" 
rf  Pliny  the  elder  (ii.  70),  (he  second  fr-om  the  Letters  of  Pliny  the  younger  (iii.  5), 
tlie  third  from  the  Acts  of  Polycarp's  martyrdom  (c.  7),  proving  "that  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era  our  present  mode  of  reckoning  (starting  from  midnight  and  mid- 
day) was  already  known.  The  third  passage  really  possesses  gi'eat  force  ;  and  it  is 
the  more  impoitant,  because  it  proceeds  from  the  very  country  in  which  John  wrote. 

f  We  owe  to  M.  Andr6  Cherbuliez,  of  Geneva,  and  M.  de  Rougemont,  who  sent 
it  to  us,  an  interesting  cnntribiition  on  this  question,  taken  from  the  "  Sacred  Dis- 
courses" of  ^lius  Aristides,  a  Greek  sophist  of  the  second  <;entury,  a  contemporaiy 
of  Polycarp,  whom  he  may  have  met  in  the  sti-eets  of  Smyrna.  In  the  first  book, 
God  commands  him  in  a  dream  to  take  a  cold  bath  ;  it  is  winter  ;  and  as  the  most 
suitable  hour  he  chooses  the  sixth,  undoubtedly  because  it  is  the  warmest.  Then,  ad- 
dressing his  friend  Bassus,  who  keeps  him  waiting,  he  says  to  him,  pointing  to  the 
pillars,  "  Seest  thou  ?  the  shadow  is  alicudy  tuining. "  Tliere  is  no  doubt,  therefore, 
that  the  sixth  hour  with  him  denotes  midday,  and  not  six  o'clock  morning  or  evening. 


niAi'.    XXIII.  :  •.'r)-4(».  4vS;) 

1kj1(1  Willi  Liinge,  in  liis  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  Hint  ^luik  duk'ci  Hit'  liogiiinintr  of  Uic  ])iui- 
islitiU'Dt  from  tiie  time  of  the  srourgins:,  which  legally  formed  its  first  net.  lu  this 
^laik  followed  iiti  opinion  which  iiuluially  arosefrom  ihecoiiiicctiou  in  which  scouig- 
ing  was  ordinarily  [wacliscd.  It  is  John  who,  by  his  more  exact  knowledge  of  the 
■whole  course  of  the  trial,  has  placed  this  part  of  the  punishment  of  Jesus  at  its  true 
time  and  in  its  true  light  The  scourging,  in  Pilate's  view,  was  not  the  beginning  of 
the  crucifixion,  but  rather  a  means  of  preventing  it.  Thus  it  is  that  Mark  has  ante- 
dated the  crucilixion  by  the  whole  interval  which  divided  tlie  scene  of  the  Kcci'  home 
fiom  the  pronouncing  of  the  sentence  and  its  execution.  It  is  absolutely  impossible 
to  suppose  that  the  whole  long  and  complicated  negotiation  between  the  Jews  and 
Pilate  took  place  belvvten  the  last  silting  of  the  Sanhedrim  (which  was  held  ax  noon 
as  it  zras  day,  Luke  22  :  CO)  and  six  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Sec  my  '  Comment,  sut 
Jean,"  ii.  pp.  GOG  and  607. 

The  punishment  of  crucifixion  was  iu  use  among  several  ancient  pe()i)lcs  (Persians, 
Assyrians,  Egyptians,  Indians,  Scythians,  GreeLs).  Among  the  K(  mans,  it  was 
used  only  for  slaves  {servile  svpplicium,  Hoiace),  and  lor  the  greatist  ciiminals 
(assassins,  brigands,  rebels).  It  was  abolished  by  Constantine.  The  scr.urging  took 
place  either  befoie  setting  out,  or  on  the  way  to  the  cross  (Liv.  xxxiii.  8G).  According 
to  Plutarch*  every  criminal  carried  his  own  cross.  Theie  was  boiiie  before  him  or 
Lung  round  his  neck  a  white  plate,  on  which  his  ciime  was  indicated  {fifulus,  ant'iz, 
alria).  The  punishment  look  i)lace,  as  a  rule,  beyond  inhabited  houses. f  near  a  road, 
that  the  largest  possible  number  of  people  might  witness  it.  The  Talmud  of  Jeru- 
salem relates  that  before  crucifixion  there  was  offered  to  the  prisoner  a  stupefying 
di aught,  which  compassionate  people,  generally  ladies  of  Jerusalem,  prepared  at 
their  own  cost.:}:  The  cross  consisted  of  two  pieces,  the  one  perpendicular  (si'a^/cw- 
lum),  the  other  horizontal  (antetina).  Nearly  at  the  middle  of  the  first  was  fixed  a 
.pin  of  wood  or  horn  (-r/f2a,Q^  f-edilr),  on  wliich  the  prisoner  rested  as  on  horseback. || 
Otherwise  the  weight  would  have  lorn  the  hands  and  left  the  body  to  fall.  They 
began  ordinarily  b}^  setting  up  and  fixing  the  cross  (Cic.  Verr.  v.  GG  ;  Jos.  "  J3ell. 
Jud."  vii.  6.  4)  ;  then  by  means  of  cords  the  body  was  raised  1o  the  height  of  the 
anfenna,  and  the  nails  driven  into  the  bauds.  Tlie  condemned  person  was  rarely 
nailed  to  the  cross  while  it  was  yet  lying  on  the  ground,  to  be  aflciward  raised. 
The  cross  does  not  seem  to  have  been  very  high.  Langen  thinks  that  it  was  Iwico 
the  height  of  a  man  :  that  is  the  maximum  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  generally  it  was 
not  so  high.  Tlie  rod  of  hyssop  on  which  the  siionge  was  held  out  to  Jesus  could 
not  be  more  tlian  two  or  three  feet  in  length.  As  lo  the  feet,  Puulus,  Liieke,  Winer, 
and  others  have  more  or  less  positively  denied  that  they  were  nailed.  They  appeal 
to  John  20  :  25  But  would  it  not  have  been  singular  pedantry  on  the  part  of 
Thomas  to  speak  here  of  the  holes  in  (lie  fret  ?  lie  euuinerales  the  wounds,  which 
weie  immediately  within  reach  of  his  hand.  It  is  the  .same  when  Jesus  speaks  to 
Thomas,  ver.  27.     Then  they  allege  the  fact  that  the  Empress  Helena,  after  having 

*  "  De  sera  Xnminis  vindicta, "  c.  9. 

+  Plautus,  "  Milns  gloriosus,"  ii.  4.  G  :  extrn  porfam. 

X  "  Bah.  Sanh."  f.  48.  1  :  "  A  grain  of  fiaukmcin»e  in  a  cup  of  wine  ;  tit  turbare- 
tur  ejus  intellerfus." 

8  Ir.  "Adv.  Hier."  ii.  42.  ^ 

I  Justin  Martj'r,  "  Dial."  fll  :  fd'  u  iroixovrrm  ol  aravpufievoi.  lreua?us,  "  Adv. 
H«r."  ii.  42.     Tertulliau.    '  Cout.  Marc."  iii.  1:5. 


490  CO-M.MENTAKY    ON    ST,   LUKE. 

discovered  the  true  cross,  sent  to  her  sun  the  nails  which  had  been  faslcnel  in  the 
hinds  of  Christ.*  But  it  is  not  said  that  she  sent  to  him  all  that  she  had  found.  The 
contrary  rather  appears  from  the  tenor  of  the  narrative  (see  Meyer,  ad  Matt.  37  :  85). 
Hu^,  ]\Ieyer,  Langen  have  proved  beyond  doubt,  by  a  series  of  quotations  from 
Xenophcn,  Plautus,  Lucian,  Justin,  Tertullian,  etc.,  that  the  custom  was  to  nail  Ihe 
feet  also  ;  and  Luke  24  :  39  (written  without  the  least  reference  to  the  prophecj'  of 
Ps.  22)  admits  of  no  doubt  that  tliis  practice  was  followed  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  For 
how  could  His  feet  have  served  as  a  proof  of  His  identity  {on  avrbi  b/6)  otberwihC 
than  by  the  wounds  the  mark  of  which  they  bore  ?  The  small  board  {suppedaneuvi), 
on  which  the  representations  of  the  crucifixion  usually  make  the  feet  of  our  Loul 
rest,  is  a  later  invention,  rendered  in  a  way  necessary  by  the  suppression  of  the  sed'Ue 
in  those  pictures.  The  feet  were  nailed  either  the  one  above  the  other  by  means  of  a 
single  nail,  which  would  explain  the  epithet  Tjua^nTioZ,  three-nailed,  given  to  the  cross 
by  Nonuus,  in  his  versified  paraphrase  of  John's  Gospel  (4th  century),  or  the  one 
beside  the  other,  which  generally  demanded  four  nails  in  all,  as  Plautus  f  seems  to 
say,  but  might  also  bo  executed  with  three,  if  we  suppose  the  use  of  a  nail  in  the 
form  of  a  horseshoe  having  two  points.  "Was  the  sole  of  the  foot  supported  on  the 
wood  by  means  of  a  very  full  bend  of  the  knee,  or  was  the  leg  in  its  whole  length 
laid  to  the  cross,  so  that  the  feet  preserved  their  natural  position  ?  Buch  details  prob- 
ably varied  at  the  caprice  of  the  executioner.  The  crucified  usually  lived  twelve 
hours,  sometimes  even  till  the  second  or  third  day.  The  fever  which  soon  set  in 
produced  a  burning  thirst.  The  increasing  inflammation  of  the  wounds  in  the  back, 
hands,  and  feet  ;  the  congestion  of  the  blood  in  the  head,  lungs,  and  heart  ;  the  swell- 
ing of  every  vein,  an  indescribable  oppression,  racking  pains  in  Ihe  head  ;  the  slifT- 
ness  of  the  limbs,  caused  by  the  unnatural  posilion  of  the  body — these  all  united  to 
make  the  punishment,  in  the  language  of  Cicero  (in  "  Verr. "  v.  G4),  crudelimiiium 
teterrimumqiie  suppUcium.     . 

From  the  beginning  Jesus  had  foreseen  that  such  would  be  the  end  of  Ilis  life. 
He  had  announced  it  to  Nicodemus  (John  ;]  :  14),  to  the  Jews  (12  :  33),  and  once  and 
again  to  His  disciples.  It  was  tlie  foresight  of  this  whjch  had  caused  His  agony  iu 
Gethseraane.  No  kind  of  death  was  so  fitted  to  strike  the  imagination.  For  this 
very  reason,  no  other  was  so  well  fitted  to  realize  the  end  which  God  proposed  in  the 
death  of  Clirist.  The  object  was,  as  St.  Paul  says  (Rom.  3),  to  give  to  the  sinful 
world  a  complete  demonstration  (et'fSct^t?)  of  the  right euusuess  of  God  (vers.  25,  2(3). 
By  its  cruelty,  a  death  of  this  sort  corresponds  to  the  odiousness  of  sin  ;  by  its  dura- 
tion, it  leaves  the  crucified  one  time  to  recognize  fully  the  right  of  God  ;  lastly,  its 
dramatic  chai'acter  produces  an  impression,  never  to  be  eiTaced,  on  the  conscience  of 
tiic  spectator.  Of  all  known  punishments,  it  was  the  cross  which  must  be  that  of 
the  Lamb  of  God. 

We  divide  this  piece  into  three  parts  :  the  Avay  to  the  cross  (vers.  36-33)  ;  the 
crucifixion  (vers.  33-38)  ;  the  time  passed  on  the  cross  (39-40). 

1st.  Vers.  20-32. t  The  punishment  required  to  be  inflicted  outside  the  city  (Lev, 

*  Socrates,  "  Hist.  Eccl."  i.  17.  t  "  Mostell."  2  :  1.  13. 

X  Ver.  20.  !!^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.,  "LLfiuva  riva  livpijvaiov  epxo/uevoi>  instead 
of  'Lifiuvo'i  Tivoi  KvprjvaLuv  Epxofievov.  Ver.  37.  A.  E.  C.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  omit 
Kai  after  ai.  ^.  omits  ai  kui.  Ver.  29.  !!^.  B.  C.  L.  eOpEfau,  D.  s^eOptilmv,  in- 
stead of  eOriXaauv.  Ver.  31.  D.  K.  A.  several  Men.  lti'i'^'-W"«,  Vg.,  yevrjaETai  instead 
of  yevtjTai. 


CHAP,    XXI ri.  :  J2f5-;}S. 


4U1 


24  :  14)  ;  it  was  the  type  of  exclusion  from  l.uman  society  (Ileh   13)      lol.n  10  •  17 
u^to.u  (Malt     8  .  38).     But  we  are  left  iu  ignorance  of  the  motive  which  soon  led 

.  ?  ,"  '""'  ""^'-''-^^^  burden,  or  did  Simon   tes.ify  his   Mnn'thv 

^^h  ll.m  rather  loo  loudly  ;  or  was  ihere  here  one  of  those  abuses  of  „  il  t^  y    Tw  r 

nit al  '::f'r ;      ',  'T'^  "  ^'^  ^^^  ^^  ^^  '■""'«"-  ?     we  cannot  tell.     ^  '.     ^  e  ^ 
Je  usalcn  (Acts  0  .  9).     It  ,s  natural  lo  conclude  from  the  words.  ca».uu/  ant  of  the 

r;;:  T.V  lI'J"  "'"■■"'"=  ^-^  "^  ^"^^  ^^^^^^  ^^'^  ^^"^•■'^- 1^--  not  the;;.f/r 

"ik       Marl   1?^^^  -true,  that  he  might  merely  have  been  taking  a 

ad  the  Saviour,  and  that  he  soon  entered  into  the  Church  with  his  family      He 
afterward  settled  at  Rome  with  his  wife  and  two  sons  (Rem   IG  •  13)  *  ' 

\  ers  27-33  are  peculiar  to  Luke.     In  ver.  27  we  see  popular  feeling  breakin-v  out 
hrough  the  mouth  of  the  women,  not.  as  M.  de  Pressense  thinks,  tho.S.  who  had  T 
compamed  Jesus  from  Galilee,  but  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.     The  sayin.s  of  Jo  us 
testify  to  His  entire  self-forgetfulness;  they  contain  an  allusion  to  Hos   To  ■  8      T  i^' 
meaning  of  ver.  31  appears  to  be  that  indicated  by  Bleek  :  the  green  wood'  is  Jesus 
led  to  death  as  a  rebel,   notwithstanding  His  constant  submission    to  the   Gentile 
au  hont.es  ;  the  dry  wood  is  the  Jewish  people,  who.  by  their  spi.it  of  revolt  will 
Av.lh  much  stronger  reason,  bring  down  on  themselves  the  sword  of  the  Romans' 
The  more  contrary  to  nature  it  is  that  Jesus  should  die  as  a  rebel,  the  more  is'it  in 
kuep.ng  with  the  nature  of  things  that  Israel  should  perish  for  rebellion.     Thus  Jesus 
makes  the  people  aware  of  the  falsehood  which  ruled  His  condemnation,  and  the  way 
m  which  God  will  take  vengeance.     No  doubt,  behind  the  human  judirmenl  which 
Visits  the  nation,  there  is  found,  as  in  all  similar  sayings  (comp.  Luke  3^:  0   etc  )   the 
divme  judgment  reserved  for  each  individual.     This  last  reference  is  demanded  bv 
the  connection  of  vers.  30  and  Bl.f    The  figure  of  the  green  wood  and  the  dry  is  bor- 
rowed from  Lzek.    21:3-8.     The  two  malefactors   were  probably  companions  of 
l^arabbas.     This  accumulation  of  infamy  on  Jesus  was  owing  perhaps  to  the  hatred 
of  the  rulers.     God  brought  out  of  it  the  glory  of  His  Son. 

2d  Vers.  33-38.t  Is  the  spot  where  Jesus  was  crucified  that  which  is  shown  for 

su.t*iiT<''!'t  '^'"^^Tr^  '^^  1'"^?  stronger  than  the  facts  warrant,  though  early  tradition 
susta  ns  it.  Alexander  and  Rufus"  are  named  by  Alark  as  known  to  his  re- ir  ,« 
and  It  is  assumed  that  this  is  the  Rufus  of  Rom.  Ki':  13.     R„t  Cfl  was  a  common 

t.iries  X-.l^'fnT"'!''''  ""'^'  '^^S^-'-*-''!  '-■  Tradition  in  the  fhiid  an  Ifou  hTen 
nir^s  ahva:ys  found  prominent  places  for  names  mentioned  iu  the  sacred  wrilings^.^ 

thinVJJlfnPwi'"^  philologist  Peerlkaamp  (in  his  "  Tacit i  Agricola,"  Levden  18(54) 
H  m  c  ■  ''^'T'"^^  transpose  ver.  31,  putting  it  after  ver.  27  :  '•  And  th.-v  Ian  i  n  ed 
^^^lilL^i:^^^''^-  ^^^'  ^'-^^  arbitrary  transposi}i.!n"]s":::! 
n   J  m'^'"' '^/.i-^n  ^^^^i.  ■'' ^y""-  S.vr.  It.  Vg.,  7??.eov  instead  of  cTT^Wov.    Ver    34    ii"  B 

ANords  r,>n,u.uan-  eA^.r,vcKoci  Kat  pcuacKOcS  Kac  e,ipacKOiS  (taken  from  John).        ' 


493  COM.MI'A'l'Ain     OX    ST.    Ll'Ki:. 

it  at  tlie  present  day,  in  the  inclosure  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  ?  The 
queslioa  does  uot  seem  yet  decided  Though  this  place  is  now  withiu  the  city  iu- 
closure,  it  might  not  have  Ijeen  so  then.  The  name  place  of  the  skull  (skull,  in  He- 
brew nT'^'?^'  i'l  Aramaic  STlT'JlT'Jli*  from  77;;  to  roll)  does  not  come  from  the  skulls  of 
the  condemned  which  remained  lymg  there  ;  this  would  require  the  plural  :  the  place 
of  skulls  ;  besides,  uuburied  banes  would  not  have  been  left  there.  The  name  is 
rather  to  be  traced  to  the  bare  rounded  form  of  the  hill.  Matthew  and  Mark  relate 
here  that  Jesus  refused  the  stupefying  draught  which  was  offered  Him.  According  Xo 
Mark,  it  was  aromatic  wine  ;  according  to  Matthew,  vinegar  mingled  with  j^all.f 

Of  the  seven  saymgs  which  Jesus  uttered  on  the  cross,  the  first  three  refer  to  the 
persons  surrounding  Him — His  enemies,  His  companion  in  punishment,  and  those 
whom  He  Ijves  most  tenderly,  His  mother  and  His  friend  ;  they  are,  as  it  were.  His 
will.  The  three  which  follow  :  "  My  God,  my  God  ...  1  tliirst  ;  it  is  fin- 
ished," refer  to  His  sufYeiings  and  the  work  which  is  being  finished  ;  the  first  two, 
t)  the  sufferings  of  His  soul  and  of  His  body  ;  the  third,  to  the  result  gained  by  this 
complete  sacrifice.  Finally,  the  seventh  and  last  :  "  Father,  into  Thy  hands  .  .  .  " 
is  the  cry  of  perfect  confidence  from  His  expiring  heart  in  its  utmost  weakness. 
Three  of  those  seven  sayings,  all  three  words  of  grace  and  failh,  ate  related  by  Luke, 
and  by  him  only. 

The  prayer  of  ver.  34  is  wanting  in  some  mss.  This  omission  is  probably  the  re- 
sult of  accident  ;  for  the  oldest  translations,  as  well  as  the  great  majority  of  mss., 
guarantee  its  authenticity  ;  and  the  appeal  of  the  thief  for  the  grace  of  Jesus,  a  few 
UDments  later,  cannot  be  well  explained,  except  by  the  impression  produced  on  him 
by  tlie  hearing  of  this  filial  invocation.  The  persons  for  whom  this  prayer  is  offered 
cannot  be  the  Raman  soldiers,  who  aie  blindly  executing  the  orders  which  they  have 
received  ;  it  is  certainly  the  Jews,  who,  by  rejecting  and  slaying  their  Messiah,  are 
smiting  themselves  with  a  mortal  blow  (John  3:19).  It  is  therefore  literally  true, 
that  iti  acting  thus  they  know  not  what  they  do.  The  prayer  of  Jesus  was  granted  in 
the  forty  years'  respite  during  which  they  were  permitted,  before  perishing,  to  hoar 
the  apostolic  preaching.  The  wrath  of  God  might  have  been  discharged  upon  them 
at  the  very  moment. 

The  casting  of  the  lot  for  the  garments  of  Jesus  (ver.  34)  belongs  to  the  same  class 
of  derisive  actions  as  those  related  ver.  3o  it  seq.  By  this  act  the  prisoner  became  the 
sport  of  his  executioners.  The  garment  of  the  crudarii  belonged  to  them,  according 
to  the  Roman  law.  Ever}-  cross  was  kept  by  a  detachment  of  four  soldiers,  a 
Terp!i(5ioi>  (Acts  13  :  4).  The  plural  K^rjpovi,  lots,  is  taken  from  the  parallels.  The  lot 
was  twice  drawn,  first  for  the  division  of  the  four  nearly  equal  parts  into  which  the 
g  I  inents  of  Jesus  were  divided  (cloak,  cap,  girdle,  sandals),  then  for  His  robe  or 
uiuic,  which  was  too  valuable  to  be  put  into  one  of  the  four  lots.  The  word  Oeupeiv, 
beholding  (ver.  35),  does  not  seem  to  indicate  a  malevolent  feeling  ;  it  rather  foims  a 
contrast  with  what  follows.  The  words  oiiv  avroli,  with  them,  must  be  rejected  from 
the  text.  The  meaning  of  the  term,  the  chosen  of  God,  is,  that  the  Christ  is  He  on 
whose  election  rests  that  of  the  entire  people.     The  mockeries  of  the  soldiers  apply  to 

*  It  is  from  this  word  that  the  name  Golgotha  is  generally  derived  (IVIatthew, 
Mark,  J()hn).  Kraft  ("  Topogr.  Jcrus. "  p.  158)  has  recently  proposed  another 
etymology  :  73,  Idll,  and  nyi^,  death  (comp.  the  place  named  Jer.  31  :  39). 

f  The  ancienl  naturalist*,  Di,")«norides  and  Galen,  ascribe  to  incense  and  myrrh  a 
stupefying  influence  (Langen,  p. 303). 


(II. \  I',   will.:  ;!S-I(;.  -I'.i;; 

Jewish  royalty  iu  itsolf,  more  than  to  Jesus  personally  (John  II)  :  o,  14,  l.j).  It  has 
often  heen  Ihouijjht  that  the  wine  which  the  vsoldiers  ollered  to  Jesus  was  that  which 
Imd  been  prepared  for  themselves  (o^os,  a  common  wine)  ;  but  the  sponge  and  the  rod 
of  hyssop  which  are  on  the  spot  leave  no  doubt  that  it  was  intended  to  allay  the 
sulTeriugs  of  the  prisoners.  It  was  perhaps  the  san>e  draught  which  had  been  offered 
to  them  at  the  beginning  of  the  crucifixion.  The  soldiers  pretend  to  treat  Jesus  as  ;i 
king,  to  whom  the  festive  cup  is  presented.  Thus  this  derisive  homage  is  connected 
with  the  ironical  inscriptiim  (not  in  regard  to  Jesus,  but  iu  regard  to  the  pe(i|ilei 
placed  on  the  cross  (ver.  38).  It  is  this  connection  of  ideas  which  is  expressed  by  the 
ijv  6i  Kni,  there  alxo  was.  By  this  inscription,  so  humbling  to  the  Jews,  Pilate  took 
vengeance  for  the  degrading  constraint  to  which  they  had  subjected  him  by  forcing 
him  to  execute  an  innocent  man.  The  mention  of  the  three  languages  is  au  interpo- 
lation taken  from  John. 

Sd.  Vers.  3!)-4G.*  Matthew  and  Mark  ascribe  the  same  jcstings  to  the  two  thieves. 
The  partisans  of  harmony  at  any  price  think  that  they  both  began  with  biaspheniy, 
and  that  one  of  them  afterward  came  to  himself.  In  any  case,  it  must  be  assuiiii d 
that  ^Litthew  and  Mark  did  not  know  tjiis  change  of  mind  ;  olherwiie,  wliy  should 
the}'  not  have  mentioned  it  V  But  is  it  not  more  natural  to  hold  thai  they  group  in 
categories,  and  that  they  are  ignorant  of  tlie  particular  fact  related  by  LukeV  How 
bad  this  thief  been  touched  and  convinced  V  Undoubtedly  ho  had  been  struck  all  at 
once  with  the  contrast  between  the  holiness  which  shone  iu  Jesus  aiul  his  own  crimes 
(vers.  40  and  41).  Then  the  meekness  with  which  Jesus  let  Himself  be  led  to  punish- 
ment, and  especially  His  prayer  for  Ilis  executioners,  had  taken  liold  of  his  con 
science  and  heart.  The  t\t\e  Father,  which  Jesus  gave  to  God  at  the  very  moment 
when  God  was  treating  Ilim  in  so  cruel  a  manner,  had  revealed  in  Him  a  Being  who 
Avas  living  in  an  intimate  relation  to  Jehovah,  and  led  him  to  feel  His  divine  greatnes.s. 
His  faith  in  the  title  King  of  the  Jews,  inscribed  on  His  cross,  was  onlj''  the  consc- 
qirence  of  such  impressions.  The  words  ovSi  av,  not  even  thoa  (ver*.  40).  which  he  ad- 
dresses to  his  companion,  allude  to  the  difference  of  moral  situation  which  belongs  to 
them  both,  aird  the  raiiers  with  whom  he  is  joining  ;  "  Thou  who  are  not  merel}',  like 
them,  a  spectator  of  this  punishment,  but  who  art  undergoing  it  thyself."  It  is  not 
for  him,  who  is  on  the  eve  of  appearing  before  the  divine  tribunal,  to  act  as  the  pro- 
fane. "Ort,  because,  refers  to  the  idea  contained  in  00,6'?/  :  "  Thou  at  least  oughtest  to 
fear    .     .     .    ;  for    .     .     ." 

The  prayer  which  he  addresses  to  Jesus  (ver.  4'2)  is  suggested  to  him  b3'  that  failh 
in  an  rmlimited  mercy  which  had  been  awaked  in  him  by  hearing  the  prayer  of  Jesus 
for  Ilis  executioners.  It  seems  to  me  probable  that  the  omission  of  the  word  Kipn, 
Lord,  in  the  Alex.,  arises  from  the  mistake  of  the  copyist,  who  was  giving  the  jjraj'er 
of  the  thief  from  memory,  and  that  the  transformation  of  the  dative  tu  'hjaov  into 

*  Ver.  80.  B.  L.  ovxi,  ^.  C  Syr"^"".  It"''i.  /.eyuv  ovxi,  instead  of  /.eyoi'  ei.  Ver. 
40.  i^.  B.  C.  L.  X.,  encri/iuv  uvtu  £<pj]  instead  of  e-en/in  avru  /.eyuv.  Ver.  42.  i4.  B.  ('. 
L.,  Irjcov  (vocative)  instead  of  ru  \i]anv.  ^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  M.  3  Mnn.  omit  kvi)1£.  B.  L. 
Il»''i.,  its  TT]V  fiaai/.etai>  cnv  instead  of  ev  ry  Hanueia  nov.  Ver.  44.  B.  C.  Ij.  add  Ti(h/ 
})efnre  unei.  Ver.  4.').  ii.  B.  C.  ('.')  L.,  rov  ip inv  eu'/i-ovToi  \nst^i{^^\  O^  k(u  eaKrirmOr/  <> 
n'toi,  which  T.  R.  n^ads,  with  17  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  l|pi«riq.w  j^  j^  f 
L..  erixiof^n  (U  instead  of  kui  eaxir/jrj.  Ver.  4().  i*.  A.  B.  C.  K.  M.  P.  Q.  U.  X.  H.  20 
Mnn.  Just,  Or.,  Trr/rjnrtOfwrtnnstead  of  ~apafj>iGoimi,  which  T.  Ti.  reads,  with  S^Mjj. 
several  Mim.  it.  B.  C.  D..  tovto  6e  instead  of  Km  ravra,  which  T.  K.  reads,  witli  iJ 
"Mu.,  or  Kui  TOVTO,  which  K.  M.  P.  IT.  1')  Mnn.  It"'"!  read. 


494  COMilENTAr.Y    ox   ST.  LUKE. 

I 
the  apostrophe  {'Irjaov)  was  the  effect  of  this  omission.  ,The  touching  cry,  Rcmemhtr 
one!  finds  its  explanation  in  that  community  of  suffering  which  seems  to  him  hence- 
forth to  establish  an  indissoluble  bond  between  Jesus  and  him.  Jesus  cannot  forget 
him  who  shared  His  punishment.  The  expression,  coming  in  Ilia  kingdom,  iv  rij 
,?affi/.«a  (not /or  His  kingdom,  ilS  ti/v  liaciTieiav),  denotes  His  !Mcssiauic  return  wilh 
divine  splendor  and  royal  majesty  some  time  after  His  death.  He  does  not  think  of 
the  possibility  of  the  body  of  .Jesus  being  raised.  In  our  Lord's  answer,  the  word  to 
day  stands  foremost,  because  Jesus  wishes  to  contrast  the  nearness  of  the  promised 
happiness  with  the  remote  future  to  which  the  prayer  of  the  thief  refers.  Ta-day, 
before  the  setting  of  the  sun  which  is  shining  on  us.  The  word  paradise  seems  to 
come  from  a  Persian  word  signifying  ^jar^.  It  is  used  in  the  form  of  CH^C  (Eccles. 
2:5;  Song  of  Solomon,  4  :  13),  to  denote  a  royal  garden.  In  the  form  -KapdSiLao^,  it 
corresponds  in  the  LXX.  to  the  word  p,  garden  (Gen.  3  :  8,  3  : 1).  ,The  earthly  Eden 
once  lost,  this  word  paradise  is  applied  to  that  part  of  Hades  where  the  faithful  are 
assembled  ;  and  even  in  the  last  writings  of  the  N.  T. ,  the  Epistles  and  the  Apoca- 
Ij'pse,  to  a  yet  higher  abode,  that  of  the  Lord  and  glorified  believers,  the  third  heaven, 
3  Cor.  12  :  4  ;  Rev.  2:7.     It  is  paradise  as  part  of  Hades  which  is  spoken  of  here. 

The  extraordinary  signs  which  accompanied  the  death  of  Jesus  (vers.  44,  45) — the 
darkness,  the  rendmg  of  the  veil  of  the  temple,  and  according  to  Matthew,  the  earth- 
quake and  the  opening  of  several  graves,  are  explained  by  the  profound  connection 
existing,  on  the  one  side  between  Christ  and  humanity,  on  the  other  between  human- 
ity and  nature.  Chiist  is  the  soul  of  humanity,  as  humanity  is  the  soul  of  the  ex- 
ternal world.  We  need  not  take  the  words,  over  all  the  earth,  in  an  absolute  sense. 
Comp.  21  :  23,  where  the  expression  £71-2  r?/?  77/S,  a  weaker  one  it  is  true,  evidently 
refers  to  the  Holy  Laud  only.  The  phenomenon  in  question  here  may  and  must 
have  extended  to  the  surrounding  countries.  The  cause  of  this  loss  of  light  cannot 
have  been  an  eclipse  ;  for  this  phenomenon  is  impossible  at  the  time  of  full  moon. 
It  was  perhaps  connected  with  the  earthquake  with  which  it  was  accompanied  ;  or 
it  may  have  resulted  from  an  atmospheric  or  cosmical  cause.*  This  diminution  of 
the  external  light  corresponded  to  the  moral  darkness  which  was  felt  by  the  heart  of 
Jesus  :  My  God,  my  God,  tchy  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  This  moment,  to  wdiich  St. 
Paul  alludes  (Gal.  3  :  13  :  "  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us"),  was  that  at  which  the 
Paschal  lamb  was  slain  in  the  temple.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between  the  two  read- 
ings ver.  45  :  "  And  the  sun  was  darkened"  (T.  R.)  ;  "  And  the  sun  faihng."  In 
any  case,  it  is  the  cause  of  the  phenomenon  related  ver.  44,  mentioned  too  late. 
Luke  omits  the  earthquake  ;  he  had  other  sources. 

*  Neander  cites  the  fact  ("  Leben  Jesu"  p.  640)  that  Phlegon,  author  of  a 
chronicle  under  the  Emperor  Adrian,  speaks  of  an  eclipse  (V)  of  the  sun  as  having 
taken  place  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  202d  Olympiad  (785a.u.c.),  greater  than  all 
former  eclipses,  and  that  night  came  on  at  the  sixth  hour  of  the  day,  to  such  a  degree 
that  the  stars  were  seen  shining  in  the  heavens.  This  date  approximates  to  the  prob- 
able year  of  the  death  of  Jesus  (783).  M.  Liais,  a  well  known  naturalist,  relates 
that  on  the  11th  of  April,  1860,  in  the  province  of  Pernambuco,  while  the  sky  was 
perfectly  clear,  the  sun  became  suddenly  dark  about  midday  to  such  a  degree  that 
for  some  seconds  it  was  possible  to  look  at  it.  Tlie  solar  disk  appeared  surrounded 
with  a  ring  having  the  colors  of  the  rainbow,  and  quite  near  it  there  was  seen  a 
bright  star,  which  "most  have  been  Vemis.  The  phenomenon  lasted  for  some  min- 
utes. M.  Liais  attributes  it  to  cosmical  nebulae  floating  in  space  beyond  our  atmos- 
phere.  A  similar  phenomenon  must  have  occurred  in  the  years  1106,  120y,  1547, 
and  1706  ("  Revue  germanique,"  1860). 

9 


CHAP,   xxirr.  :  ;J8-40.  .  495 

The  rending  of  the  veil,  m|}ntioncd  1)}' the  three  Syn.,  should  probahly  be  con- 
nected with  this  physical  commotion.  Is  the  veil  referred  to  that  which  was  at  the 
entrance  of  tlie  Holy  Place,  or  that  wliich  concealed  the  Holy  of  Holies?  As  ihe 
second  only  had  a  typical  sense,  and  alone  bore,  strictly  speaking,  tlic  namo 
KnraireTaoun  (Philo  calls  the  other  Kiilvnna  *),  it  is  more  natural  to  think  of  the  latter. 
The  idea  usually  found  in  this  symbolic  event  is  this  :  The  way  to  the  throne  of  irraco 
is  henceforlh  open  to  all.  But  did  not  God  rather  mean  to  sliow  thereby,  that  l.>,ni 
that  time  the  temple  was  no  longer  His  dwelling-place  V  As  the  high  piiesL  rent  liii 
garment  in  view  of  any  great  offence,  so  God  rends  the  veil  which  covers  the  placo 
where  He, enters  into  conunuuion  with  His  people  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Holy  of  Holies 
is  no  mure  ;  and  if  there  is  no  Holy  of  Holies,  then  no  Holy  Place,  and  consequently 
no  court,  no  altar,  no  valid  sacriTices.  The  temple  is  profaned,  and  consetiueutly 
abolished  by  Gr.d  Himself.  The  eflicacy  of  sacrifice  has  henceforlh  passed  to  another 
blood,  another  altar,  another  priesthood.  This  is  what  Jesus  had  announced  to  the 
Jews  in  this  form:  Put  me  to  death,  and  by  the  very  deed  ye  shall  destroy  I  he 
temple  !  Jewish  and  Christian  tradition  has  preserved  the  memory  iif  analogous 
events  Avhich  must  have  happened  at  this  period.  In  the  Judeo-Chrislian  Gospel 
quoted  by  Jerome  (ia  Matt.  27  :  ni),  it  was  related  that  at  the  time  of  the  eartlupiake 
a  large  beam  lying  above  the  gate  of  the  temple  snapped  asunder.  The  Talmud  says 
that  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  gates  of  the  temple  opened 
of  their  own  accord.  Johanaa  Ben  Zacchai  (]:m"'  is  ]:".  Anna,  with  the  name  of 
Jchoruh  prefixed)  rebuked  them,  and  said  :  Temple,  wherefore  dost  thou  open  of  thy- 
self? I  see  thereby  that  the  end  is  near  ;  for  it  is  written  (Zech.  11  :  1),  "  Open  thy 
doors,  O  Lebun;>n,  that  the  lite  may  devour  thy  cedars."  f  At  the  time  of  the  eclipse 
mentioned  above,  a  great  earthquake  destroyed  part  of  the  city  of  Nice,  in  Bithynia.| 
This  catastrophe  may  have  been  felt  even  in  Palestine.  Those  phenomena,  which 
are  placed  l)y  Luke  before  the  time  of  our  Lord's  death,  are  placed  by  JMalthew  and 
Mark  immediately  after.     Another  proof  of  the  difference  of  their  sources. 

Here  should  come  the  two  sayings  mentioned  by  John  :  1  third,  and  It  isfiimhed. 
Perhaps  the  words  :  Yvlien  lie  had  cried  xcith  a  loud  voice  (ver.  4G),  incluile  the  saying. 
It  i.H  finished,  which  immediately  preceded  the  last  breath.  But  the  particip'e  our/iaas 
has  probably  no  other  meaning  than  the  verb  eiTve  :  "  Raising  His  voice  He  .'^aid."  The 
words:  Whtn  Ue  h(td  cried  icitli  a  loud  voice,  m  Matthew  and  Mark,  refer  rather  to 
the  last  saying  uttered  by  Jesus  according  to  Luke  :  Father,  iido  thy  hands  .  .  . 
The  latter  expresses  what  John  has  described  in  the  form  of  an  act  :  He  gave  up  His 
spirit.  The  last  saying  is  a  quotation  from  Ps.  31.  The  fut.  -TTapuOt/couui,  I  shall 
commit,  in  the  received  reading,  is  probably  borrowed  from  the  LXX.  The  fut.  was 
uatuial  in  David's  mouth,  for  death  was  yet  at  a  distance  ;  he  described  the  way  m 
which  he  hoped  one  day  to  draw  his  last  breath.  But  the  present  is  alone  in  keeping 
with  the  actual  circumstances  of  Jesus.  At  the  moment  wherj  He  is  about  to  lose 
self -consciousness,  and  when  the  possession  of  His  spirit  escapes  from  Him,  He  con- 
fides it  as  a  deposit  to  his  Father.  The  word  Father  shows  that  His  soul  has  recov- 
ered full  serenity.  Xot  long  ago  He  was  struggling  with  the  divine  sovereignty  and 
holiness  (m)/  God,  my  God!).  Now  the  darkness  is  gone  ;  He  has  recovered  His  light, 
His  Father's  face.  It.  is  the  first  effect  of  the  completion  of  redemption,  the  glorious 
prelude  of  the  resurrection. 

*  Neander,  "  Leben  Jesu."  p.  640.  \  "  Bab.  Toma,"  39.  2. 

t  See  Neander's  "  Leben  Jesu,"  p.  G40. 


400  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

Keim  does  not  accept  as  historical  any  of  the  seven  sayings  which  .lesus  is  said  to 
have  uttered  on  the  cross.  The  prayer  for  his  exepuiionershas  uo  meaning  eiUier  in 
regard  to  the  Genlile  sjhliers,  who  were  merely  blind  instruments,  or  in  lespecL  of 
the  Jews,  to  whom  He  had  just  announced  divine  judgment.  Besules,  sileuce  suits 
Jesus  better  than  a  forced  and  superhuman  heroism.  The  story  of  the  tiiiLf  is  ex- 
pl  )ded  by  the  facl  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have  known  the  inuucence  and 
the  future  return  of  Jesus,  and  that  Jesus  should  have  promised  him  paratlis;',  which 
is  in  the  hand  of  the  Father.  The  saying  addressed  to  John  and  J\Iaiy  is  not  histoii- 
<;ai  ;  for  those  two  were  not  at  the  foot  of  the  cioss  (Syn  ),  and  John  never  hud  a 
h  )iise  to  which  to  lake  Mary.  The  prayer  :  My  God,  my  (Joel,  is  only  an  impoilaliou 
of  Ps.  32  into  the  account  of  the  Passiun  ;  Jesus  was  loo  original  to  borrow  the  expres- 
sion of  His  feelings  from  the  O.  T.  The  same  reason  disproves  the  aulhenticiiy  cf 
llie  last  saying  :  Father,  into  Thy  lianda,  borrowed  from  Fs.  31.  The  It  isjixii^hcd  of 
Jolm  is  only  the  summary  expression  of  the  dogmatics  already  put  by  the  author  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  in  His  last  discourses.  The  hisioiic  truth  is  thus  reduced  to  two 
cries  of  Jesus  :  one  of  pain,  which  John  has  translated,  nnt  without  leasou,  into  i 
thirst ;  and  a  last  cry,  Ihat  of  death.  This  silence  of  Jesus  forms,  according  to  Keim, 
the  real  greatness  of  His  death.  The  prayer  of  Jesus  and  His  threatening  are  not 
m»re  C()atradictor5r  than  divine  justice  and  human  intercessioii.  There  is  room  iu 
liistorj'^  for  the  effects  of  both.  The  prophetic  form  in  which  Jpsus  clothes  the  ex- 
pression of  His  thoughts  takes  nolhmg  from  their  oiiginality.  They  spring  frcmi  ihe 
depths  of  His  being,  and  meet  with  expressous  which  arefnmiliar  to  Him,  and  whicli 
He  emplovs  instinctively.  John  here,  as  throughout  his  Gospel,  completes  the  syn- 
optics. We  think  we  have  shown  how  the  prayer  of  the  thief  is  psychologically  pos- 
sible. It  is  doing  too  much  honor  to  the  primilive  Church  to  ascribe  to  her  the  in- 
vention of  such  sayings.  If  she  had  invented,  she  would  not  have  done  so  in  a  style 
so  chaste,  so  concise,  so  holy  ;  once  more  compare  the  apocryphal  accounts. 

THIRD   CYCLE. — CHAP.    23:47-56. 

Close  of  ihe  Account  of  the  Passion. 

Vers.  47-49.*  These  verses  describe  the  immediate  effects  of  our  Lord's  death, 
first  on  the  Roman  centurion  (ver.  47),  then  on  the  people  (ver.  48),  lastly  on  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus  (ver,  49).  Mark  says  of  the  centurion  :  When  he  smc.  These  words 
relate  to  the  last  cry  of  Jesus  and  to  the  event  of  His  death.  In  Matthew  and  Luke 
this  same  expression  refers  to  all  the  events  which  had  just  passed.  Luke  gives  the 
Saying  of  this  Gentile  in  Ihe  simplest  form  :  27us  was  a  righteous  man;  that  is  to  say  : 
He  was  no  malefactor,  as  was  supposed.  But  this  homage  implied  something  more  ; 
for  Jesus  having  given  Himself  out  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  if  He  was  a  righteous  man, 
must  be  more  than  that.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  cenlui ion's  exclamation  in  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Twice  on  the  cross  Jesus  had  called  God  JLs 
Fatlbcr  ;  the  centurion  could  therefore  well  express  himself  thus  :  He  was  really,  as 
He  alleged,  the  Son  of  God  !  As  the  centurion's  exclamation  is  an  anticipation  of 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world,  so  the  consternation  which  takes  possession  of  the 
Jews  on  witnessing  the  scene  (ver.  48)  anticipates  the  final  penitence  and  conversion 
of  this  people  (comp.  Zech.  13  :  10-14.)  The  word  Oeupla,  that  sight,  alludes  to  the 
feeling  of  curiosity  which  had  attracted  the  mtillilude. 

Among  the  acquaintance  of  Jesus  spoken  cf  ver.  49  there  must  have  been  some  of 
His  apostles.     This  is  the  necessaiy  inference  from  the  word   Travrer,  all.     'Manpudev, 

*  Ver.  47.  ».  B.  D.  L.  R..  fdofnCfi^  instead  of  eSo^aaei'.  Ver.  48.  7  Mjj.  Syr., 
BeupijaavTEi  instead  of  6EupovvTe<;.  J*.  A..  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit  savujn,  Ver. 
49.  A.  B.  L.  P.  3  Mnn.,  avru  instead  of  avrov  after  yvutaroi,.  S*.  B.  D.  L.  10  Mnn.  aid 
C'To  before  /iaKpo(/et>. 


t  II  Ai'.    Will.:  4;-"t(I.  .i;i;' 

afnr  off,  discoveis  the  fear  which  prevailed  anions  llicm.  John  and  Mary  Iiad  come 
nearer  Ihu  cross  (John  10  :  HG,  27).  Luke  does  not  name  till  later  any  of  the  wonieii 
present.  Matthew  and  ^laik  here  designate  Mary  ]\lagdaleue,  of  wiiom  John  also 
speaks  ;  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  probably  the  same  ■whom  Jolin  calls 
31ary  the  wife  of  Cleopus,  and  aunt  of  Jisus  ;  with  the  mother  of  the  sous  of  Zebedee, 
whom  jNIark  calls  Salome,  and  whom  John  leaves  unmenlioned,  as  lie  does  when 
membeis  of  his  own  family  are  iu  question.  TheSyu.  do  not  speak  of  tlie  molher  of 
Jesus.  We  ought  probably  to  take  in  its  literal  sense  the  words  :  "  From  that  linur 
th;il  disciple  look  her  unto  his  own  home"  (John  19  .27).  The  heait  of  Mary  was 
br;)ken  on  heaiing  the  deep)}'  tender  words  which  Jesus  had  spoken  to  her,  and  she 
wiilidti'W  that  same  hour,  so  that  she  was  not  present  at  the  end  of  the  civicifixion. 
when  the  friends  of  Jesus  and  the  other  women  came  near.  l^'iariiKeiGnv,  they  ntood,  is 
opposed  to  v-iariiecpov,  tlicy  returned  (ver.  48).  While  the  people  were  leaving  the 
cross,  Ilis  fiituds  assembled  in  sight  of  Jesus.  The  words  :  hchuldiiaj  l/iene  tilings, 
lefer  not  only  to  the  circumstances  allendlng  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  also,  and  above 
all,  to  the  departure  of  the  territied  multitude.  This  minute  particular,  taken  f rt  m 
the  immediate  impiession  of  the  witnesses,  betrays  a  source  in  close  connection  with 
the  fact. 

Vers.  50-o4.*  TIte  Burial  of  Jesus. — According  to  John,  the  Jewish  authorities 
requested  Pilate  to  have  the  bodies  removed  befoie  (he  beginning  of  the  next  day, 
which  was  a  Saitbatli  of  extiaordinary  solemnity.  For  though  Jesus  and  his  compan- 
i  )us  in  punishment  were  not  yet  dead,  and  though  the  law  Dent.  21  :  22  did  not  heie 
apply  literally,  tluy  might  have  died  before  the  end  of  the  day  which  was  about  to 
begin,  and  the  day  be  polluted  thereby  all  the  more,  because,  it  being  a  Babbalh,  the 
bodies  could  not  be  removed.  The  crucifvagium,  ordered  by  Pilate,  was  not  meant 
tn  put  the  condemned  immediately  to  death,  but  only  to  make  it  cntain,  which 
allowed  of  Iheir  being  taken  fiom  the  cross.  Thus  is  explained  the  wonder  of  Pilate, 
when  Joseph  of  Aiimalhea  informed  him  that  Jesus  was  already  dead  (Mark  15  :  44). 
The  seciet  fiiends  of  our  Loid  show  themselves  at  the  time  of  Ills  deepest  di.-honor. 
Already  the  word  finds  fulfilment  (2  Cor.  5  :  14)  :  "  The  love  of  Christ  consliaineth 
us."  Each  evangelist  chaiacleiizes  Joseph  in  his  own  way.  Luke:  a  counsellor 
good  and  just;  he  is  the  /ca/oS  A^jnOo?,  the  Greek  ideal.  Mark  :  an  hnnoiablo 
counsellor;  the  Roman  ideal.  Matthew:  a  lich  man;  is  this  net  the  Jewish 
ideal  ?  Luke,  moreover,  brings  out  the  fact,  that  Joseph  had  not  agreed 
to  the  sentence  (f3or/.j?),  nor  to  the  odious  plan  {nfja^ei)  by  which  Pdate's  con- 
sent had  been  extorted.  'Api/nuOa'ta  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  name  of  the  town 
Jliunutluiim  (1  Sam.  1  : 1),  Samuel's  birthplace,  situated  in  Mount  Ephraim,  and  con- 
sequently beyond  Ihe  natural  limits  of  Judea.  But  since  the  time  spoken  of  in  1 
]Vlacc.  11  :  34,  it  had  been  reckoned  to  this  province  ;  hence  the  expiession  :  u  city  of 
the  Jews.  As  to  Josepli,  he  lived  at  Jerusalem  ;  for  he  had  a  sepulchre  there.  The 
received  reading  oS  nai  -npoaeStxeTo  Kdi  avTui,  who  aluo  hitnself  waited,  is  probably  the 

*  Ver.  51.  !S^.  B.  C.  D.  L.  If'-i.,  oS  -npnoKUxfTo  insteadof  o?  nnt  Tri)oc£(hxeTo  (F. 
some  Mnn.  S^r.)  ;  instcail  of  o?  Km  civtuc  -pnoKhxero  ((j  ^Ijj.  15  Mun  )  ;  instead  of  o5 
Kai  -jmatdixtro  kcu  avroc  (T.  li.,  with  9  Mjj)  ;  instead  of  oi  ~fi  )c(de\tTO  kol  avroi  (sev- 
eral Mrm.  It""'!.  Vg.).  Ver.  5:5.  5*.  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  II""m.  Yg.  omit  avru  after 
KdOeAuf.  !*.  B.  C.  D.  ItP'^rique  Vg.,  avTof  instead  of  avro.  ^.  B.  D.  Ij.  8  Mnn.,  ovnu 
inslead  of  ovih-u  Ver.  54.  ii.  B.  C.  L.  2  ]\lnn.  lii'i>-'-'q<>«,  Vg..  ■Kdpaaiifvrir  instiad  of 
-rripaoKevTi.  l(j  Mji  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  omit  k(u  before  c(id3aToii,  which  is  read  by 
54.  B.  C.  L.  s^me'Mnn.  Svr.  Iipi"iq"-=,  Vg. 


408  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.  LUKE. 

true  one  ;  it  has  been  variously  modified,  because  the  relation  of  the  also  MmseJf  to 
the  other  friends  of  Jesus  who  were  previously  mentioned  (ver.  49)  was  nut  under- 
stood ;  by  the  double  Kai,  Luke  gives  prominence  to  the  believing  chuiacter  of 
Joseph,  even  when  no  one  suspected  it. 

Mai k  (15  ■•  4G)  informs  us  tliat  the  shroud  in  which  the  body  was  wrapped  was 
bought  at  the  same  time  by  .Joseph.  How  could  such  a  purchase  be  made  if  the  day 
was  Sabbatic,  if  it  was  the  loth  Xisan  V  Langen  answers  that  Ex.  13:16  made  a 
dilference,  so  far  as  the  preparation  of  food  was  concerned,  between  the  lolh  i*sisan 
and  the  iSabbath  properly  so  called,  and  that  this  dilference  might  have  extended  to 
other  matters,  to  purchases  for  example  ;  that,  besides,  it  was  not  necessary  to  paj"" 
on  the  same  day.  But  the  Talmud  reverses  this  supposition.  It  expressly  stipulates 
that  wi)en  the  14th  Nisan  fell  on  the  Sabbath  day,  it  was  lawful  on  that  day  to  make 
preparation  for  the  morrow,  the  15lh  ("  Mischna  Pesachim,"  iii.  0  ei  nl.),  tbus  sacri- 
ficmg  the  sacreduess  of  the  Sabbath  to  that  of  the  feast  da}'.  Could  the  latter  have 
been  less  holy  !  There  is  no  ground  for  alleging  that  the  authorization  of  Ex.  13 
extended  beyond  the  strict  limits  of  the  text. 

According  to  the  Syn.,  the  circumstance  which  determined  the  use  of  this  sepul- 
chre was,  that  it  belonged  to  Joseph.  According  to  John,  it  was  its  nearness  to  the 
place  of  punishment,  taken  in  connection  with  the  approach  of  the  Sabbath.  But 
those  two  circumstances  are  so  far  from  being  in  contradiction,  that  the  one 
apart  from  the  other  would  have  no  value.  What  influence  could  the  ap- 
proach of  the  Sabbath  have  had  in  the  choice  of  this  rocky  sepulchre,  if  it  hud 
not  belonged  to  one  of  the  friends  of  Jesus?  The  Syn.  do  not  speak  of  the  part 
taken  by  Nicodemus  in  the  burial  of  Jesus.  This  particular,  omitted  by  tradition, 
has  been  restored  by  John.  It  is  of  no  consequence  whether  we  read  in  ver.  54, 
TTapaaKEvT/i  or  irapaaKev?/.  The  important  point  is,  whether  tliis  name,  which  means 
preparation,  denotes  here  the  eve  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  (Friday),  or  that  of  the  Pass- 
over day  (the  14th  Nisan).  Those  who  allege  that  Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  loth 
take  it  in  the  first  sense  ;  those  who  hold  it  to  have  been  on  the  14lh,  in  the  secjud. 
The  text  in  itself  admits  of  both  views.  But  in  the  context,  how  can  it  be  held,  we 
would  ask  with  Caspari  (p.  173),  that  the  holiest  day  of  the  feast  of  the  j^ear,  the  loth 
Nisan,  was  here  designated,  like  any  ordinary  Friday,  the  preparation  for  the  Sab- 
bath '{  No  doubt  ]Mark,  in  the  parall.,  translates  this  word  by  •jrpoadfiiSaTov,  day  before 
Sabbath  (15  :  43).  But  this  expression  may  mean  in  a  general  way  :  the  eve  of  Sab- 
bath or  of  any  Sabbatic  day  whatever.  And  in  the  present  case  it  must  have  ibis  lat- 
ter sense,  as  appears  from  the  i-si,  because.  Mark  means  to  explain,  by  the  Sabbatic 
character  of  the  following  day,  why  they  made  haste  to  bury  the  body  :  it  was  tlie 
pro-Sabbath.  What  meaning  would  this  reason  have  had,  if  the  very  day  on  which 
they  were  acting  had  been  a  Sabbatic  day  V  Matt.  37  :  G3  offers  an  analogous  expres- 
sion. In  speaking  of  Saturday,  the  morrow  after  the  death  of  .Jesus,  Matthew  says  : 
*  the  next  day,  that  followed  the  preparation."  We  have  already  called  attention  to 
this  expression  ("  Comment,  sur  Jean,"  t.  ii.  p.  638).  "  If  this  Saturday,"  says  Caspaii 
(p.  77),  "  had  been  an  ordinary  Sabbath,  Matthew  would  nut  have  designated  it  in  so 
strange  a  manner.  The  preparation  in  question  must  have  had  a  character  quite 
different  from  the  preparation  for  the  ordinary  Sabbath.  This  preparation  day  must 
have  been  so  called  as  a  day  of  special  preparation,  as  itself  a  feast  day  ;  it  must  have 
been  the  14th  Nisan."  The  term  Eni(puGKe,  was  beginning  to  shine,  is  figurative.  It  is 
taken  from  the  natural  day,  and  applied  here  to  the  civil  day. 


CHAT,    xxiii.  :  o4-5G.  499 

Vers.  t)~),  50.*  Tlie  embalming  of  Jesus  having  been  done  in  hnste,  the  •women 
proposed  to  coniiilute  it.  This  same  evening,  tlicicfore,  tliry  prepaietl  the  oilorifi  r- 
ous  herbs  {(ipuuaTa)  anil  the  perfumed  oils  (fvpa)  ueeessary  for  the  purpose  ;  and  liic 
hour  of  the  8abbath  being  come,  they  rested.  ()u(  e  more,  vhat  would  be  tlie  mean- 
ing of  this  conduct  if  that  very  day  had  been  Sabbatic,  the  loth  Xi.van  V  Evidently  it 
\vas  j-et  the  14th  ;  ami  the  loih,  which  was  about  to  begin,  was  at  once  the  weekly 
S;d)bath  and  the  first  Passover  day,  and  so  invested  with  double  sacrcdness,  as  John 
icmurks  (1!)  :  31).  ]\Iark  says,  somewhat  diflferenlly  (16  :  1),  that  the}'  made  their 
jueparations  tcficn  the  t-ahbath  wns  past,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  morrow  in  the  evening. 
No  doubt  they  had  not  been  able  to  finish  them  completely  ou  the  Friday  before  si.v 
o'clock  afternoon.  The  «flt  of  the  T.  R.  before  ywalKtS,  ver.  S^,  is  evidently  a  cor- 
luption  of  a'l.  It  has  been  asked  how,  if  Jesus  predicted  His  resurrection,  the 
women  could  have  prepared  to  embalm  ITis  body.  But  we  have  seen  the  answer  in 
tlie  case  of  the  converted  thief  :  they  expected  a  glorious  reappearance  of  Jesus  from 
luavfu  after  His  death,  but  not  the  reviving  of  His  body  laid  in  the  tomb.  A  feel- 
ing of  pious  and  humble  fidehty  is  expressed  in  the  Ci)nduct  of  the  women,  as  it  is 
described  by  Luke  in  the  touching  words  :  "  And  they  rested  according  to  the  coni- 
mandmeut."  It  was  the  last  Sabbath  of  the  old  covenant.  It  was  scrupulously  re- 
spected. 

Conclusion  regarding  the  Day  of  Jesus'  Death. 

It  follows  from  the  exegesis  of  chaps.  2*3  and  2o,  that  according  to  the  Syn.,  as 
well  as  accoiding  to  John,  the  day  of  Jesus'  death  was  not  the  fiist  and  grcjit  d:iv  of 
tiie  paschal  feasl  (ir)th  Nisan),  but  the  day  befoie(ur  preparation),  the  14lh  Ni  an, 
wliicii  that  year  was  a  Fiiday.  and  so.  at  the  same  time,  \\\q prtparaiioa  for  the 
Sai)bath.  Hence  it  follows  also  that  the  last  feast  of  Jesus  took  place  on  the 
evening  bttweeu  the  loth  and  14lii,  and  not  on  the  evening  bttween  the  14th 
and  loHi,  when  the  whole  people  celebrated  the  paschal  feast.  Such  is  the  result  to 
which  wo  are  biought  bv  all  the  passages  examined  :  23  :  7-9,  10-15,  06  ;  23  :  20, 
5:!,  54,  55,  50  ;  Matt.  26  TS,  18  ;  27  :  02  ;  Mark  14  :  2  ;  15  :  42,  40  ;  so  that,  on  the 
main  ([ueslion,  it  appeals  to  us  that  cxi-gelically  theie  can  be  no  doubt,  seeing  Ihat 
our  four  Gospel  accounts  piesent  no  leal  dij^agreement.  The  fact,  therefore,  slandsas 
follows  :  On  the  13lh,  toward  evening,  Jesus  sent  the  two  disciidts  most  woilhy  of 
His  confidence  to  prepare  the  paschal  feast  ;  in  the  opinion  of  all  the  lesl,  tliis  was 
with  a  view  to  the  following;  evening,  when  the  national  feast  was  to  be  celebrated. 
]]ut  Jesus  knew  that  by  tiiat  time  the  hour  would  be -past  for  His  celebrating  Ihia 
last  Passover.  This  same  evcnin>:;,  theiefoie,  some  houis  after  having  sent  llu;  two 
disciples.  He  seated  Himself  at  the  table  prepared  by  them  and  by  ilie  master  of  the 
li.iuse.  There  was  in  this  a  surprise  for  the  apostles,  which  is  probably  referred  to  iiy 
Luke  22  :  15  :  "  With  desiie  1  have  desiied  to  eat  this  jKissover  willi  ymi  befoie  1 
siilfer."  Aliove  all,  it  was  a  surprise  to  Judas,  who  had  resolved  to  tive  Him  up 
this  same  evening.  This  anticijialioii  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath 
and  of  the  wholtriaw  (0  :  5),  involved  nothing  less  than  the  abrogation  of  the  paschal 
feast  and  of  the  ancient  covenant. 

This  exegetical  result  at^rees  fully  with  Jewish  tradition.  In  "  Bab.  Sanhedr." 
40.  1,  it  is  expressly  said  (Caspari,  p.  150)  :  "  Jesus  was  executed  on  the  eve  of  the 
Passover.  A  publi(!  criei  had  proclaimed  for  seventy  days  that  a  man  was  lo  lie 
stoned  for  having  bewitched  Israel  and  seduced  it  into  schism  ;  lliat  he  wliohadany- 
ihmg  to  say  for  his  justification  should  pres^ent  himself  and  testify  for  him  ;  but  no 
one  appeared  to  justVy  him.  Tiien  they  crucified  him  on  the  evening  [the  evej  cf  the 
Pansocer  {^^^^  Z^.J/'Z)-"     This  last  expression  can  denote  nothing  but  the  evening 

*  Ver.  55.  Tns'ead  of  (h  Km  ywniKe?',  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  some  Mun..  the  !M.tJ. 
read  either   <5c  -.vvatKei  or  <h  m  yvvaiKe^. 


oOO  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

prefeding  the  Passover,  as  n^II^n  ^"'ly.  eveninr/  of  the  Sahhath,  never  denotes  any- 
liiiog  but  Fiiday  evening.  Tins  view  seems  also  lo  be  llial,  wliicli  prevailed  in  tbe 
Ohnrcli  in  tlie.  most  aucieut  times,  as  we  see  from  Cieinenl  uf  Alexandria,  who  lived 
when  primilive  Iradilion  was  not  yet  effaced,  and  wiio  jirofesses  wilhout  hesitation 
the  same  opinion.  It  is,  moreover,  in  keeping  with  the  admitable  symbolism  which 
is  tlie  character  of  all  God's  works.  Jesus  dies  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14lh,  at  the 
very  momi'iit  when  the  paschal  lamb  was  slain  in  the  temple.  He  rests  in  the  tomb 
on  the  loLh  JSisau,  a  day  doubly  Sabbatic  that  year,  as  being  Saturday  and  the  first 
day  of  the  feast.  This  ilay  of  rest,  so  exceptionally  solemn,  divides  the  hist  creation, 
which  is  termiuatiug,  froui  tlie  second,  which  is  beginning.  Jesus  rises  on  the  mor- 
row, KJlh  Nisan,  the  very  day  on  which  there  was  offeied  in  the  temple  the  first 
sli'jaf  cut  in  the  year,  the  first  fruits  (  f  the  harvest.  Is  it  not  to  this  sjnibolism  that 
St.  Paul  himself  alludes  in  the  two  passages  :  "  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  saciifieed  for 
us"  (1  Cor.  5  :  7)  ;  and,  "  Every  one  in  his  own  order  ;  Christ,  the  first  Jruits  ;  after- 
ward they  that  are  His,  at  Elis  coming"  (1  Cor.  15  :  23)'  It  is  probable,  also,  that 
if  St.  Paul  had  regarded  the  night  on  wiiich  Jesus  instituted  the  Holy  Sujjper  as  the 
same  on  which  Israel  celebrated  tire  Passover,  lie  would  not  have  designated  it 
simply  (1  Cor.  11  :  23)  as  that  on  tchic'i  our  Lord  was  betrayed. 

The  only  further  question  w.hieh  may  yet  appear  doubtful,  is  whether  the  com- 
pilers of  our  three  synoptic  narratives  had  a  clear  view  of  the  real  couise  of  events. 
They  have  faithfully  preserved  to  us  the  facts  and  sayings  which  help  us  to  make  it 
out;  but  is  there  not  some  confusion  in  their  minds?  Was  not  this  last  feast  of 
Christ,  which  had  all  the  features  of  an  ordinary  paschal  feast,  and  in  which  He  had 
iasiituted  the  supper  as  the  counterpart  of  the  Isiaelilish  rite,  confounded  in  the 
traditional  accouuis  with  tlie  national  paschal  feast?  And  has  not  this  confusion  ex- 
ercised a  certain  influence  on  the  account  of  the  Syn.  ?  This,  at  least,  is  the  differ- 
ence which  exists  between  them  and  John  :  they  relate  simply,  without  concerning 
themselves  about  the  difference  between  this  last  supper  and  the  Isiaelilish  paschal 
fea-it  ;  while  John,  who  sees  this  confusion  gaining  ground,  expressly  tmphasizts 
the  dbstlnetloii  between  the  two.* 

As  to  the  bearing  of  this  (lueslion  on  the  paschal  controversy  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  on  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  it  may  be  explained  in  two 
wa/s  :  Either  the  event  celebrated  by  the  Asiatics  was,  as  is  natiual,  the  death  uf 
Christ  (Steilz),  and  not  the  fact  of  tlie  institution  of  the  Supprr  (Baur),  and  hence  it 
would  follow,  in  entire  hatmuny  with  the  fnurlh  Gospel,  that  they  regarded  llie  14!h. 
and  uot  th(!  loth,  as  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  (this  is  the  explanalion  whi.h  we  have 
advocate  1  in  the  "  Comment,  sur  Jean")  ;  or  it  may  be  maintained,  as  isdoneby  M. 
E.  Schiirer  (whose  dissertation  on  this  question  f  leaves  little  to  be  desired),  that  the 
Asiatic  rite  was  determined  ueitiier  by  the  day  on  which  the  Holy  Supper  was  insti- 
tute!, nor  even  by  that  on  which  Christ  died,  but  solely  by  the  (tcsire  of  keeping  up 
in  the  churches  of  Asin,  for  the  Holy  Easter  Supper,  the  day  on  which  the  law  or- 
dained the  pa'<chal  feast  to  be  celebrated.  In  this  case,  the  Asiatic  rite  neither  contra- 
dictel  nor  c  )n(irmed  John's  narrative  ;  it  had  no  connection  with  it. 

From  this  detenninatinu  of  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  Jisns  died,  it  remains 
for  us  to  draw  a  conclusidu  regarding  the  year  of  that  event.  The  result  obtained  is, 
that  in  that  year  the  13th  Nisan.  the  preparation  for  the  Passover  and  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  fell  on  a  Friday,  and  the  day  of  the  Passover.  14lh  Nisan,  on  a  Satuiday. 
Now,  it  follows  from  the  calculations  of'Wurm  (Bengel's  "  Atchiv."  ISlfi.  ii.),  and  uf 
Oudemaun,  Professor  of  Astronomy  at  Utrecht  ("  Revue  de  thenl."  1863,  p.  221), 
whose  results  differ  only  by  a  fevv  minutes,  that  in  the  years  from  28  to  36  of  ou^eia, 
in  one  of  which  the  death  of  Jesus  must  have  falh'ii,  the  day  of  the  Passover,  15111 
Nisan,  was  a  Saturday  only  in  30  and  84  (783  and  787  a.tj.c.).^    If,  then,  Jesus  was 

*  We  have  the  satisfaction  of  finding  ourselves  at  one  in  this  view  with  Krummel 
in  the  Litteraturhlatt  of  Darmstadt,  February,  18G8,  with  M.  C.  Baggeseu  ("  Der 
Apostel  Johannes,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften,"  1809),  and  (in  substance)  with 
Caspari. 

f  "  De  controversiis  paschalihus  sec.  post.  Chr.  n.  seculo  exortis,"  Leipzig,  1869. 

I  Sometimes  AVurm's  calculation  is  cited  to  an  opposite  effect.  But  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  he  dates,  as  we  do,  from  midnight,  instead  of  making  the  days  begin 


COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE. 


501 


born  (p.  12G)  at  the  end  of  749  or  tlic   bojrinnin-  of  7^n  a  n  r    t  4  ,..        1    , 
o.ir  na;  if  He   ^^•as  baptized  in  t!,.  course"  T  Ilis  ^O.I    Jear  (I  uk^V-^?^^^ 

clsoTcawi'pSG)  """'•     '^'''  ^--"'Stance  cxerci.es  a  decisive  influence  in  this 

*  Caspaii  places  the  baptism  of  Jesusas  wc  do.  in  28   and  His  death  in  '?n    K<.;m  ■ 

he  be-Mnn.n.^  of  His  ministry,  in  the  sprin^^  of  -.U -,  the  dea      of  J    ml  e  B  n.  i '1     ,i 


SEVENTH    PART. 


THE  KESURKECTION   AND   ASCENSION, 

Chap.  24. 

It  is  in  this  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative  that  the  four  accounts  diverge  most.  As 
friends,  who  for  a  time  have  travelled  together,  disperse  at  the  end  of  the  journey  to 
take  each  the  way  which  brings  him  to  his  own  home,  so  in  this  last  part,  the  peculiar 
object  of  each  evangdist  exercises  an  influence  on  his  narrative  yet  more  maiked  than 
before.  Luke,  who  wishes  to  describe  the  gradual  growth  of  Chtislian  woik  fiom 
Nazareth  to  Rome,  prepares,  in  those  last  statemtuts  of  his  Gospel,  for  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  apostolic  preaching  and  of  tiie  founding  of  the  Church,  which  he  is  about 
to  trace  in  the  Acts.  Matthew,  whose  purpose  is  to  prove  the  Messianic  claims  of 
Jesus,  closes  his  demoiis*,raliori  by  narrating  the  most  soleirm  appearance  of  the  rism 
Jesus,  when  He  made  known  to  the  Church  His  elevation  to  universal  sovereignty, 
and  installed  the  apostles  in  their  mission  as  conquerors  of  the  world.  John,  who 
relates  the  history  of  the  development  of  faith  in  the  founders  of  the  gospel,  side  1)y 
side  with  that  of  incredulity  in  Israel,  closes  his  narrative  with  the  appearance  whic'^ 
led  to  the  profession  of  Tliomas,  and  which  consummated  the  triumph  of  faith  over 
unbelief  in  the  apostolic  circle.  It  Is  vain  to  mutilate  the  ccuclusion  of  Mark's  work. 
We  dud  here  again  the  characteristic  feature  of  his  narrative.  He  had,  above  alV,  ex- 
hibited the  powerful  acUrity  of  our  Lord  as  a  divine  evangelist  :  the  last  words  of  IjIs 
account,  16  :  19,  20,  show  us  Jesus  glorified,  still  co-oi^erating  from  heaven  with 
His  apostles. 

Each  evangelist  knows  well  the  point  at  which  he  aims,  and  hence  the  reason  tliat 
the  narratives  diverge  more  as  they  reach  the  conclusion.  The  special  difleiences  in 
the  accounts  of  tlie  resurrection  are  partly  the  ell'ect  of  this  principal  divergence.  Of 
the  four  accounis,  the  two  extremes  are  that  of  Matthew,  which  puts  the  whole  stress 
on  the  great  Galilean  appearance,  and  that  of  Luke,  which  relates  only  the  appear- 
ances in  Judea.  The  other  two  are,  as  it  were,  middle  terms.  Mark  (at  least  from 
16  •.  9)  is  dependent  on  the  former  two,  and  oscillates  between  them.  John  really 
unites  them  by  relating,  like  Luke,  the  appearances  at  Jerusalem,  while  mentioning 
also,  like  Matthew,  a  remaikable  (ippetirance  in  Galilee.  If,  indeed,  chap.  21  was  not 
composed  by  John,  it  certainly  proceeds  from  a  tradition  emanating  from  this  apostle. 
Tile  fact  of  appearances  having  taken  place  both  in  Judea  and  Galilee  is  also  con 
firmed  indirectly  by  Paul,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  account  of  Luke  contains  :  1.  The  visit  of  the  women  to  the  tomb  (vers.  1-7) 
2.  Peter's  visit  to  the  tomb  (vers.  8-12).  3.  The  appearance  to  the  two  disciples  on 
the  way  to  Emmaus  (vers.  13-32).     4.  The  appearance  to  the  disciples  on  the  evening 


CHAT.   XXIV.  :  1-7.  503 

of  the  resurrection  day  (vers.  33-4;>).     5.  The  last  inslructions  of  Jesus  (vers.  44-4!)). 
C.  The  ascension  (vers.  50-53). 

1.  2'he  Women  at  the  Sapulchre  :  vers.  1-7. — Vers.  1-7.*  The  women  play  the  first, 
if  not  the  principal,  part  in  all  those  accounts  ;  a  special  duty  called  thcni  to  the 
tomb.  They  were,  accordins:  to  ]\Iatt.  28  :  1,  Marj'  jVIagdalcue  and  the  otlicr  Mary 
(the  aunt  of  Jesus)  ;  according  to  Mark  (IG  :  1),  those  same  two,  and  Ssilome  tlic 
mother  of  James  and  John  ;  according  to  Luke  (ver.  10),  the  first  two,  alonu;  willi 
the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward  (S  :  3).  John  names  only  3Iary  Magdalene.  But 
does  not  Mary  herself  allude  to  the  presence  of  others  when  she  says  (ver.  2) :  "  "We 
know  not  where  thej'  luive  laid  Ilim  "?  If  John  names  her  so  specially,  it  is  becaiise 
he  intends  to  give  anew  the  account  of  the  appearance  which  tradition  had  either 
omitted  or  generalized  (Matthew),  and  which  as,  having  taken  place  first,  had  a  cer- 
tam  impoitance.  As  to  the  time  of  the  women's  arrival,  Luke  says.  Very  early  in 
the  morning  ;  Matthew,  b\^l  aaPiSdruv,  which  signifies,  not  SabbatJi  evening,  but  (like 
the  phrases  u^i  fivaTT/pluv,  pcractis  mysieriis,  oipi  rpulKuv,  after  the  Trojan  war  ;  see 
Block)  :  after  the  Sabbath,  in  the  night  which  followed.  By  the  r?7  inKpucKovar/,  Mat- 
thew expresses  the  fact  that  it  was  at  the  time  of  daybreak.  Mark  says,  with  a  slight 
difference,  which  only  proves  the  independence  of  his  narrative  (to  ver.  8),  At  the 
rixing  of  the  sun.  The  object  of  the  women  was,  according  to  Matthew,  to  visit  the 
sepulchre  ;  according  to  the  other  two,  to  embalm  the  bodj'. 

The  fact  of  the  resurrection  itself  is  not  described  by  any  evangelist,  no  one 
having  been  present.  Only  the  Risen  One  was  seen.  It  is  of  Him  that  the  evangel- 
ists bear  witness.  3Iatthew  is  the  one  who  goes  furthest  back.  An  earthquake,  due 
to  the  action  of  an  angel  {yup),  shakes  and  dislodges  the  stone  ;  the  angel  seats  him- 
self upon  it,  and  the  guards  take  to  flight.  L^ndoubtedly,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
this  account,  even  in  its  style  (Ihe  parallelism,  ver.  3),  has  a  poetic  tinge.  But  some 
such  fact  is  necessarily  supposed  by  what  follows.  Otherwise,  how  would  the 
sepulchre  have  been  found  open  on  the  arrival  of  the  women  ?  It  is  at  this  point  that 
the  other  accounts  begin.  In  John,  j\lary  Magdalene  sees  nothing  except  the  stone 
wliich  has  been  rolled  away  ;  she  runs  instantly  to  apprise  Peter  and  John.  It  ma}' 
be  supposed  that  the  other  women  did  not  accompany  her,  and  tliat,  having  come 
near  the  sepulchre,  they  were  witnesses  of  the  appearance  of  the  angel  ;  then,  that 
they  returned  home.  Not  till  after  that  did  Mary  Magdalene  come  back  with  Peter 
and  .lohn  (John  21  :  1-9).  It  might  be  supposed,  indeed,  that  this  whole  account 
given  by  the  Syn.  regarding  the  appearance  of  the  angel  (Matthew  and  jSIark),  or  of 
the  two  angels  (Luke),  to  the  women,  is  at  bottom  nothing  more  than  the  fact  of  the 
appearance  of  the  angels  to  Mary  related  by  .John  (20  :  11-13)  and  generalized  by  tra- 
dition. But  vers.  22,  23  ot  Luke  are  not  favoralile  to  this  view.  Mar}'  Magdalene, 
having  seen  the  Lord  immediately  after  the  appearance  of  the  angels,  could  not  have 
related  the  first  of  those  facts  without  also  mentioning  the  second,  which  was  far 
more  important.  ' 

In  the  angel's  address,  as  reproduced  by  the  Syn.,  everything  differs,  with  the 

*  The  MSB.  are  divided  between  /5a(3fo5  (T.  R,  Byz.)  and /Ja^fuS  (Alex.),  and  be- 
tween fivTtixa  (T.  R.)  and  /ivTi/isiou  (taken  fiom  the  parall.).  5*.  B.  C.  L.  2  Mnn. 
Jipieriqne^  Vg.  omlt  tlic  wohIs  k(u  Ttvci  (7VV  avTaii.  YnT.  4.  !!>.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  anopeiafjai 
instead  of  (haKoptioOai.  ^.  B.  D.  It.  Vg.,  ev  eoOtjti  aGrpanrovrsT]  instead  of  ev  eaOijceaiv 
noTpmrTovaaic.  Ver.  5.  The  MS8.  are  divided  between  to  npoau-w  (T.  R.,  Bj'z.)  and 
TO  TpoGcj-^ra  (Alex.). 


504r  COMMENTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

siugle  exception  of  the  words  wbich  are  identical  in  all,  He  is  not  here.  A  coriimon 
document  is  inadmissible.  lu  Luke,  the  angel  recalls  to  the  memuiy  of  the  women 
former  promises  of  a  resurre  tiou.  lu  MattLew  aud  Maiii,  he  reminds  them,  wliile 
calling  on  them  to  remind  the  disciples,  of  tlie  rendezvous  which  Jesus  had  appouiled 
for  Ills  own  in  Galilee  before  His  death.  Upodyei,  He  goeth  before,  like  an  invisible 
shepherd  walking  at  the  head  of  His  visible  flock.  Already,  indeed,  before  His  death 
Jesus  had  shown  His  concern  to  reconstitute  His  Galilean  Church,  and  that  in  Galilee 
itself  (Mark  14  :  28  ,  Matt.  20  :  32)  ;  viids  you,  cannot  apply  to  the  apostles  only  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  women  ;  it  embraces  all  the  faithful.  It  is  also  certain  that  the  last 
words,  lliere  ye  sliall  see  Him,  do  not  belong  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which  the  women 
are  charged  to  report  to  the  disciples.  It  is  the  angel  himself  who  speaks,  as  is 
proved  by  the  expression,  Lo,  1  hare  told  you  (Matthew)  ;  and  more  clearly  still  l)y 
the  words,  As  He  said  iinto  you  (Mark).  This  gallieriug,  which  Jesus  had  in  view 
even  in  Gethsemane,  at  the  mument  when  He  saw  them  ready  to  be  scattered,  nnd 
which  forms  the  subject  of  the  angel's  message  immediately  after  the  resurrection, 
was  intended  to  be  the  general  reunion  of  all  the  faithful,  who  for  the  most  part 
were  natives  of  Galilee,  and  who  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  future  Church  of  Jesus. 
After  that,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  hear  St.  Paul  speak  (1  Cor.  15)  of  an  a.^sem- 
blage  of  more  than  500  brethren,  of  whom  the  120  Galileans  of  Pentecost  were  the 
elite  (Acts  1  :  15,  2:7);  comp.  also  the  expression  my  brethren  (John  20  :  17),  which 
certainly  includes  more  than  the  eleven  apostles.  There  follows  in  Matthew  an 
appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  women  just  as  they  are  leaving  the  tomb.  It  seems  to  mo 
that  this  appearance  can  be  no  odier  than  that  which,  according  to  .John,  was  granted 
to  Mar}--  iMagdalene.  Tradition  had  applied  it  to  the  women  in  geueral.  Comp.  the 
expressions.  They  embraced  His  feet  (Matthew),  with  the  words,  Touch  me  not,  in 
John  ;  Tell  my  brethren  (IMatthew),  with  Go  to  my  brethren  and  say  unto  them,,  in 
John.  Finally,  it  must  be  remarked  that  in  the  two  accounts  this  appearance  of 
Jesus  immediately  follows  that  of  the  angel.  In  Matthew's  mind,  does  the  promise. 
There  shall  they  see  me,  exclude  all  appearance  to  the  apostles  previous  to  tbat  which 
is  here  announced?  If  it  is  so,  the  contradiction  between  this  declaration  and  the 
accounts  of  Luke  and  John  is  glaring.  But  even  in  Matthew,  the  expression,  There 
[in  Galilee]  ye  shall  see  me,  ver.  7,  is  immediately  followed  by  an  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  those  women,  and  that  in  Judea  (ver.  9)  ;  this  fact  proves  clearly  that  we  must 
not  give  such  a  negative  force  to  Matthew's  expression.  What  we  have  here  is  the 
affirmation  of  a  solemn  reunion  which  shall  take  place  in  Galilee,  aud  at  which  not 
only  the  apostles,  but  the  women  and  all  the  faithful,  shall  be  present.  That  docs 
not  at  all  exclude  special  appearances  granted  to  this  or  that  one  before  the  appear- 
ance here  in  question. 

The  following  was  therefore  the  course  of  events  ;  Mary  Magdalene  comes  to  the 
sepulchre  with  other  women.  On  seeing  the  stone  rolled  away,  she  runs  to  inform 
the  disciples  ;  the  other  women  remain  ;  perhaps  others  besides  arrived  a  little  later 
(Maik).  The  angel  declares  to  them  the  resurrection,  and  they  return.  Mary  Mag- 
dalene comes  back  with  Peter  and  John  ;  then,  having  remained  alone  after  their 
departure,  she  witnesses  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  risen  from  the  dead. 

2.    Visit  of  Peter  to  the  Sepulchre  :  vers.  8-12.— Vers.  8-12.*  As  we  have  found  the 

*  Ver.  10.  13  Mjj.  45  Mnu.  If'ii.  omit  at  before  Eltyov.    Yer.  11.  ii.   B.   D.   L. 

Syr.  Tipi'-rique^  _„  py^uara  rnvrn  instead  of  rn  p-r^fuiTa  avTuv.  Ver.  12.  This  verse  is  en- 
tirely omitted  by  D  :i  1)  e  1  Fukl.  Syr''^".     It  is  found  in  19  Mii.  all  the  Mnn.  Syr"". 


CHAT.    XXIV.  :  8-lG.  oUo 

ncoount  jjiv^en,  John  20  :  14-18,  in  IVhiUhew's  narrative  of  tlic  appearance  to  Ihe  wom- 
eu,  so  we  recognize  here  the  fact  wliich  is  related  more  in  detail  in  .lolin  20  :  1-10. 
Lidie  says,  ver.  t),  tiial  on  reluming  from  llie  sepulchre  Ihe  women  related  what  they 
had  seen  and  heard,  while,  accordnig  to  Jlaik  (ver.  8),  they  hx'pt  ailciicc.  This  con- 
tradietiou  is  explained  by  the  fact  tiial  the  two  sayings  refer  to  two  dilTercnt  events  : 
the  first,  to  the  account  which  IMary  IMagdalene  gives  to  Peter  and  John,  and  which 
led  them  to  the  sepulchre  (Luke,  vers.  12  and  22-2-1) — a  report  which  soon  spread 
among  the  apostles  and  all  the  disciples  ;  the  other,  to  the  first  moments  wliich  fol- 
lowed the  return  of  the  other  women,  until,  Iheir  fears  having  ahated,  they  began  to 
speak.  But  this  contradiction  in  terms  proves 'that  at  least  up  to  ver.  8  Mark  had 
not  Luke  before  him.  The  al  of  the  T.  R.,  ver.  10,  before  iTisyov  is  indispensable. 
The  omission  of  ver.  12  in  the  Cantab,  and  some  copies  of  the  Latin  and  Syriac  trans- 
lations appeared  so  serious  a  matter  to  Tischendorf  that  he  rejected  this  verse  in  his 
eighth  edition.  But  if  it  were  an  interpolation  taken  from  John,  it  would  not  have 
mentioned  Peter  onl}',  but  Peter  and  John  (or  (he  other  disciple).  And  the  apparent 
contradiction  would  have  been  avoided  between  this  verse  and  ver.  24,  where  it  is  not 
an  apostle,  Xmi  certain  of  them  (rifer),  who  ie()air  to  the  sepulchre.  The  extreme 
caprice  and  carelessness  which  prevail  throughout  cod.  D  and  the  documents  of  the 
Itala  which  are  connected  with  it  are  well  known.  The  entire  body  of  the  other  Mjj. 
and  of  the  j\Inn.,  as  well  as  most  of  the  copies  of  the  ancient  translations,  support 
the  T.  R.  Some  such  historical  fact  as  that  mentioned  in  this  verse  is  required  by 
the  declaration  of  the  two  disciples  (ver,  24).  Thei-e  is,  besides,  a  striking  resem- 
blance between  the  account  of  John  and  that  of  Luke.  The  terms  Trapanvipa'^, 
oOovi'a  HEi'i-ieva,  Ttpui  eavrov  aTrs/Osii^,  are  found  in  both. 

3.  T7ie  Appearance  on  the  icay  to  Emmans:  vers.  13-32.— Vers.  13-82.*  Here  is 
one  of  the  most  admiral  le  pieces  in  Luke's  Gospel.  As  John  alone  has  preserved  to 
us  the  account  of  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene,  so  Luke  alone  has  tiansmitte'd 
to  us  that  of  the  appearance  granted  to  the  two  disciples  of  Emmaus.  The  summary 
of  this  event  in  ^Lirk  (16  :  12,  13)  is  evidently  nothing  more  than  an  extract  from  Luke. 

Vers.  13-16.  llie  Ui&torical  Introduction. — 'Idov,  behold,  prepares  us  for  something 
unexpected.  One  of  the  two  disciples  was  called  Cleopas  (ver.  18).  This  name  is  an 
abbreviation  of  Cleopatros,  and  not,  like  A'Aoj^raS  (John  19  :  25),  the  reproduction  of 
the  Hebrew  name  "'J}'?"'  which  Luke  always  translates  by  \4X(paio?  (0  :  15  ;  Acts 
1  :  13).  This  name,  of  Greek  origin,  leads  to  the  supposition  that  this  disciple  was  a 
proselyte  come  to  the  feast.  As  to  the  other,  it  has  been  thought  (Theophylact, 
Lange)  that  it  was  Luke  himself — first,  because  he  is  not  named  ;  and  next,  becau.se 
of  the  peculiarly  dramatic  character  of  the  narrative  following  (comp.  especially  ver. 
32).  Luke  1  :  2  proves  nothing  against  this  view.  For  the  author  distinguishes  him- 
self in  this  passage,  not  from  witnesses  absolutely,  but  from  those  who  were  wit- 
nesses from  the  beginning  ;  and  this  contact  for  a  moment  did  not  give  him  the  right 
to  rank  himself  among  the  authors  of  the  Gospel  tradition.     Jesus,  by  manifesting 

*  Ver.  13.  H.  I.  K.  X.  11.  some  Mnn.,  eKarov  eirjunv-a  in.stead  of  e^TjKovra.  Ver. 
17.  i^.  A.  (".')  H.  Le.,  Kai  tarnbTinav  OKv^jp(,)-oi  iristeail  of  aai  egte  oKvOpunoL.  Ver.  18. 
it.  B.  L.  N.  X..  ovojiaTL  instead  of  u  ovoun.  All  the  3Ijj.,  A.  excepted,  omit  rv  before 
Ifpovaa'/.Tjfi.  Ver.  19.  !!*.  B.  I.  L.,  vn^dfinvov  instead  of  I'd^upniov.  Ver.  21.  ii.  D.  B. 
li.  add  Kcu  after  aX/aye.  i*.  B.  L.  Syr.  omit  nr]iLfnw.  Ver.  28  it.  A.  B.  D.  L.  It"''i.. 
■KiiooerroiT/nnTo  instead  of  TTpo'^enoietTo.  Ver.  29.  it.  B.  L.  some  Mini.  lt"''9.  Vg.  add 
f/(5//  after  kek/ikev.    Ver.  32.  it.  B.  D   L.  omit  nai  before  «jS  (kipoiyev. 


50G  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

Himself  to  these  two  men,  accomplished  for  the  first  time  what  He  had  anuounced  to 
the  Greeks,  who  iisked  to  speak  with  Him  in  the  temple  :  "  If  I  be  lifted  up  from  the 
earth,  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  me"  (John  12  :  32,  38).  Emmaus  is  not,  as  was  held 
1)3'  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  Ammaus  (later  Nicopolis),  the  modern  Anwas,  situated  to 
the  S.E.  of  Lydda  ;  for  this  town  lies  180  furlongs  from  Jerusalem,  more  than 
double  the  distance  mentioned  by  Luke,  and  such  a  distance  is  incompatible  with  our 
account  (ver.  23).  Caspar!  (p.  2u7)  has  been  led  to  the  conviction  previousl}'^  ex- 
pressed by  Sepp,  that  this  place  is  no  other  than  the  village  Ammaus  mentioned  by 
Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  vii.  6.  6),  which  Titus  assigned  to  8uU  veterans  of  his  army  to 
found  a  colony.  This  place,  stuated  E.S.E.  from  Jerusalem,  is  called  even  at  the 
present  day  KolonieJi,  and  is  distant  exactly  G(J  furlongs  from  Jerusalem.  In  Succa 
iv.  5,  the  Talmud  says  that  there,  at  Mauza  (with  the  article  :  Hama  MaQza),  they  go 
to  gather  the  green  boughs  for  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  ;  elsewhere  it  is  said  that 
"  Mauza  is  Kolonieh."  The  reasoning,  dv^ifveiv  (ver.  15),  bore,  according  to  ver. 
21,  on  the  force  of  the  promises  of  Jesus.  The  exparovyro,  were  liolden  (ver.  16),  is 
explained  by  the  concurrence  of  two  factors  :  the  incredulity  of  the  disciples  regard- 
ing the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  (comp.  ver.  25),  and  a  mysterious  change  which 
had  been  wrought  on  the  person  of  our  Lord  (comp.  Mark  16  :  12  :  kv  kripoi  luopqiy, 
and  John  20  :  15,  supposing  Him  to  be  the  gardener    .     .     .). 

Vers.  17-19a.  Beginning  of  the  Conversation. — Ver.  17.  Jesus  generally  interrogates 
before  instructing.  As  a  good  teacher,  in  order  to  be  heard.  He  begins  by  causing 
his  auditors  to  speak  (.John  1  :  38).  The  Alex,  reading  at  the  end  of  ver.  17,  allowed 
by  Tischendorf  (8lh  ed.)  :  and  stood  sad,  borders  on  the  absurd.  Ver.  18.  Muvoi 
belongs  to  both  verbs,  napoi>ce'ii  and  ovk  exvooi,  together.  They  take  Jesus  for 
one  of  those  numerous  strangers  who,  like  themselves,  are  temporarily  sojourning  at 
Jerusalem.  An  inhabitant  of  the  city  would  not  have  failed  to  know  these  things  ; 
and  in  their  view,  to  know  them  was  to  be  engrossed  with  them. 

Vers.  19^-24.  Account  of  the  Two  Disciples. — Jesus  has  now  brought  them  to  the 
point  where  He  wished,  namely,  to  open  up  their  heart  to  Him  ;  6vv  Ttddi  rovroii 
(ver.  21),  in  spite  of  the  extraordinary  qualities  described  ver.  19.  'Aysi  may  be 
taken  impersonally,  iis  in  Latin,  agit  diem,  for  agitur  dies.  But  it  may  also  have 
Jesus  for  its  subject,  as  in  the  phrase  aysi  dsHaroT'  eroS,  "  he  is  in  his  tenth  year." 
But  along  with  those  causes  of  discouragement,  there  are  also  grounds  of  hope.  This 
opposition  is  indicated  by  dXXa  uai,  "  But  indeed  there  are  also  .  .  ."  (ver.  22). 
Ver.  23.  Aeyov6ai,  oi  Xeyov6iv,  hearsay  of  a  hearsay.  This  form  shows  how  little 
faith  they  put  in  all  those  reports  (comp.  ver.  11).  Ver.  24.  Peter,  then,  was  not  the 
only  one,  as  he  seemed  to  be  from  ver.  12.  Here  is  an  example,  among  many  others, 
ot  the  traps  which  are  unintentionally  laid  for  criticism  by  the  simple  and  artless 
style  of  our  sacred  historians.  On  each  occasion  they  say  simpl}'-  what  the  context 
calls  for,  omitting  everything  which  goes  beyond,  but  sometimes,  as  here,  adding  it 
themselves  later  (John  3  :  22  ;  comp.  with  4  :  2).  The  last  words,  Him  tliey  saw  not, 
prove  that  the  two  disciples  set  out  from  Jerusalem  between  the  return  of  the  women 
and  that  f)f  Peter  and  John,  and  even  of  Mary  Magdalene. 

Vers.  25-27.  The  Teaching  of  Jesws.— The  xal  avroi,  then  He  (ver.  25),  shows 
that  His  turn  has  now  come.  They  have  said  everything — they  have  opened  their 
heart  ;  now  it  is  for  Him  to  fill  it  with  new  things.  And  first,  in  the  way  of  rebuke 
(ver.  25).  'Avor/roi,  fools,  refers  to  the  understanding  ;  ftpadeT?,  slotc,  to  the  heart. 
If  they  liad  embraced  the  living  God  with  more  fervent  faith,  the  fact  nf  the  resur- 


ciiAi".    xxiv.  :  17-43.  bOi 

reclion  would  not  have  been  so  strange  to  their  hopes  (20  :  37,  38).  Next,  in  the  way 
of  instruction  (vers.  20  and  27).  Ver.  26  is  the  central  word  of  this  narrative.  The 
explanation  of  the  ethi,  ought,  was  no  doubt  rather  cxcgetical  lliati  dDgmatioal  ;  it 
lurni'd  on  the  text  presontcd  h\'  tlm  prophecies  (ver.  27).  Jesus  liad  before  Ilim  a 
irranl  licld,  from  the  Protevangcliuni  down  to  Mai.  4.  In  studying  the  Scriptures 
for  Himself,  lie  liad  found  Himself  in  them  everywhere  (John  5  :  ;]'J,  40).  He  had 
now  only  to  let  this  light  which  tilled  His  heart  ray  forth  from  Him.  The  second 
ano  (ver.  27)  shows  that  the  demonstration  began  anew  with  every  prophet. 

Vers.  28-o2.  Ilintorical  Condumon. — "When  Jesus  made  as  if  He  would  contimie 
His  journey,  it  was  not  a  ineie  feint.  He  would  have  really  gone,  but  for  that  sort  of 
constraint  which  they  exercised  over  Him.  Every  gift  of  God  is  an  invitation  to 
claim  a  greater  {x^xpti'  a%'Tl  ^a'pzroS,  John  1  :  10).  But  most  men  stop  very  ({uickly 
on  this  way  :  and  thus  they  never  reach  the  full  blessing  (2  Kings  13  :  14-19).  The 
verb  HavaxXidvyai,  to  sit  down  at  table  (ver.  30),  applies  to  a  common  meal,  aiul  does 
not  involve  the  idea  of  a  Holy  Supper.  Acting  as  head  of  tlie  family,  Jesus  takes  the 
bread  and  gives  thanks.  The  word  dir/voixOf/dcxv,  uere  opened  (ver.  31),  is  contrasted 
with  the  preceding,  icere  /widen,  ver.  10.  It  indicates  a  divine  operation,  which  de- 
stroys the  effect  of  the  causes  referred  to,  ver.  16.  No  doubt  the  influence  exercised 
on  their  heart  by  the  preceding  conversation  and  by  the  thanksgiving  of  Jesus,  as  well 
as  the  manner  in  which  He  broke  and  distributed  the  bread,  had  prepared  them  for 
this  awaking  of  the  inner  sense.  The  sudden  disappearance  of  Jesus  has  a  supernatn- 
ral  character.  His  body  was  already  in  course  of  glorification,  and  obeyed  more  freely 
than  before  the  will  of  the  spirit.  Besides,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Jesus,  sti icily 
speaking,  teas  already  no  more  with  them  (ver.  44),  and  that  the  miracle  consisted 
rather  in  His  appearing  than  in  Hi.-^  disappearing.  The  saying,  so  intimate  in  its  char- 
acter, which  is  preserved  ver.  32,  in  any  case  betrays  u  source  close  to  the  event  itself  ; 
tradition  would  not  have  invented  such  a  saying. 

If  we  accept  the  view  which  recognizes  Luke  himself  in  the  companion  of  Cleopas, 
vre  shiiU  find  ourselves  brought  to  this  critical  result,  that  each  evangelist  has  left  in 
a  corner  of  his  narrative  a  modest  indication  of  his  person  :  Matthew,  in  the  pul)iican 
whom  Jesus  removes  by  a  word  from  his  previous  occupations  ;  JNIark,  in  the  young 
man  who  fiees,  leaving  his  garment  at  Getlisemane  ;  Jolin,  in  the  disciple  designated 
as  he  whom  Jesus  loved  ;  Luke,  iu  the  anonymous  traveller  of  Emmaus. 

4.  TJie  Appearance  to  the  Apoatles  :  vers.  33-43. — Vers.  33-43.*  The  two  travellers, 
immediately  changing  their  intended  route,  return  to  Jerusalem,  where  they  find  the 
apostles  assembled  and  full  of  joy.  An  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Peter  had  overcome 
:.;i  the  doubts  left  by  the  accoimts  of  the  women.  This  appearance  should  probably 
be  placed  at  the  time  when  Peter  returned  home  (ver.  12),  after  his  visit  to  the  tomb. 
Paul  places  it  (1  Cor.  15)  first  of  all.  He  omits  Luke's  first  (the  two  going  to  Emmaus) 
and  John's  first  (Mary  Magdalene).  For  where  a[)osto]ic  testimony  is  in  question  as  iu 
that  chapter,  unofficial  witnesses,  not  chosen  (Acts  1  :  2),  are  left  out  of  account. 
Peter  was  nut  at  that  time  restored  as  an  apostle  (comp.  John  21),  but  he  received  his 

*  Ver.  33.  !*.  B.  D.,  TjOpoiauivoVi  instead  of  avvnOpoii/irvni';.  Ver.  36.  D.  If'W, 
omit  th(i  words  Kat  /eyet  avTutS  eipijvi]  viuv.  Ver.  38.  B.  D.  lip'^riq"*,  ev  rrj  napim  in- 
stead of  fi'  ra«5  Kapihaii;.  Ver.  3!l.  !*.  D.  Ir.,  capKuc  instead  of  nnpKn.  Ver.  40.  This 
verse  is  omitted  by  D.  Il""i.  Syi'"'.  Ver.  42.  ».  A.  B.  D.  L.  11.  Clement.  Or.  omit 
Kci  n~o  fie/.iaaiov  KTjpiov,  which  is  read  by  T.  R.  12  Mjj.  all  the  Mun.  Syr.  It"'"i. 
Justin,  etc. 


508  COMMENTAltY    OX    ST.   LIKE. 

pardon  as  a  believer.  If  traditiou  had  invented,  would  it  not,  above  all,  have 
imagined  an  appearance  to  John  ?  This  account  refers  to  Ibe  same  appearance  as 
John  20  :  19-23.  The  two  Gospels  place  it  on  the  evening  of  the  resurrection  day. 
Tlie  sudden  appearance  of  Jesus,  ver.  ^6,  indicated  by  the  words,  He  stood  in  the 
midst  of  them,  is  evidently  supernatural,  like  His  disappearance  (ver.  31).  lis  miracu- 
luus  character  is  expressed  still  more  precisely  by  John,  The  doors  were  shut.  The 
salutation  would  be  the  same  in  both  accounts  :  Peace  be  iinto  you,  were  we  not 
obliged  to  give  the  preference  here  to  the  text  of  the  Cantab,  and  of  some  copies  of 
the  Mala,  which  rejects  these  words.  The  T.  R.  has  piobably  been  interpolated 
from  John.  The  term  Ttvevjua  (ver.  37)  denotes  the  spirit  of  the  dead  returning  with- 
out a  body  from  Hades,  and  appearing  in  a  visible  form  as  umbra,  cpdvra6ucx  (Malt. 
14  :  20).  This  impression  naturally  arose  from  tlie  sudden  and  miraculous  appear- 
ance of  Jesus.  The  8ia7.oyi6f.ioi,  inward  disputings,  are  contrasted  with  the  simple 
acknowledgment  of  Him  who  stands  before  them.  At  ver.  39,  Jesus  asserts  His 
identity  :  "  That  it  is  1  myself,"  and  then  His  corporeity  :  "  Handle  me,  and  see." 
The  sight  of  His  hands  and  feet  proves  those  two  propositions  by  the  wounds,  the 
marks  of  which  they  siill  bear.  Ver.  40  is  wanting  in  D.  It"'"'!.  It  might  be  sus- 
pected that  it  is  taken  from  John  20  :  20,  if  in  this  latter  passage,  instead  of  His  feet, 
there  was  not  His  side.  In  vers.  41-43,  Jesus  gives  them  a  new  proof  of  His  cor- 
poreity by  eating  meats  which  they  had  to  offer  Him.  Their  very  joy  prevented  them 
from  believing  in  so  great  a  happiness,  and  formed  an  obstacle  to  their  faith.  Strauss 
finds  a  contradiction  between  the  act  of  eating  and  the  notion  of  a  glorified  body. 
But  the  body  of  Jesus  was  in  a  transition  state.  Our  Lord  Himself  says  to  Mary 
Magdalene,  "  I  am  not  yet  ascended  .  .  .  but  I  ascend"  (John  20:17).  On  the 
one  hand,  then.  He  still  had  His  terrestrial  body.  On  the  other,  this  body  was  al- 
ready raised  to  a  higher  condition.  We  have  no  exiDcrience  to  help  us  in  forming  a 
clear  idea  of  this  transition,  any  more  than  of  its  goal,  the  glorified  body.  Tlie  omis- 
sion of  the  words,  and  of  an  honeycomb,  in  the  Alex.,  is  probably  due  to  the  confusion 
of  the  uai-vihioXx  precedes  with  that  which  follows. 

This  appearance  of  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  apostles,  related  by  John  and  Luke, 
is  also  mentioned  by  Mark  (16  :  14)  and  by  Paul  (1  Cor.  15  :  5).  But  John  alone  dis- 
tinguishes it  from  that  which  took  place  eight  days  after  in  similar  circumstances, 
and  at  which  the  doubts  of  Thomas  were  overcome.  And  would  it  be  too  daring  to 
suppose  that,  as  the  first  of  those  appearances  was  meant  to  gather  together  the  apns- 
tles  whom  Jesus  wished  to  bring  to  Galilee,  the  second  was  inlended  to  complete  this 
reunion,  which  was  hindered  by  the  obstinate  resistance  of  Tliomas  ;  consequently, 
that  it  was  the  unbelief  of  this  disciple  whicli  prevented  the  immediate  return  of  the 
apostles  to  Galilee,  and  forced  them  to  remain  at  Jerusalem  during  the  whole  pas(;hal 
week  !  Jesus  did  not  lead  back  the  flock  until  He  had  the  number  completed  :  "  Of 
those  whom  Thou  gavest  me  none  is  lost." 

5.   The  last  Instructions  :  \evs,.  Al^tAQ. — Vers.  44-49.*    Mej^er,   Bleek,   and  others 

*  Ver.  44.  i*.  B.  L.  X.  someMnn.  ItP'oriquc^  yir.^  TrpoS  avrovQ  instead  of  avrot-.  8 
Mjj.  some  Mnn.  omit  /zoy  after  /.nyoi.  Ver.  46.  !!*.  B  C.  D.  L.  ltp''^"-'q'>%  omit  luu  ovrcjc 
Set,  after  yeypawTaL.  Ver.  47.  i^.  B.  Syr^'^^''., /ifrai^oiav  ftS  0(>faiv  instead  of /^eraro/ay 
nat.  n(j)eatv.  i>.  B.  C.  L.  N.  X.,  ap^a/ievot  instead  of  ap^n/xevoi-.  Ver.  48.  B.  D.  omit 
eare  before  /laprvpeS.  Ver.  49.  i».  D.  L.  Syr^'^'\  ItP'«"q"^  Vg.  omit  uhv.  J^"  B.  L  X. 
A.,  e^arrnnre/J-u  instead  of  airoareA'/.o).  i*.  B.  C<  D.  L.  Iipi^'Wu-^,  Vg.  omit  lepovaaz-vM 
after  ttoXil. 


ciiAi'.    wiv.  :  i'A-i'J.  r)0'.» 

think  that  all  the  sayinirs  which  follow  were  uttered  tliia  same  evcniuj?,  and  that  the 
asccn^inn  itself  must,  according  to  Luke,  have  followed  imniedialely,  during  the  nijzlit 
or  toward  morning.  Luke  corrected  himself  later  in  the  Acts,  where,  uccorditig  to 
a  moie  exact  tradition,  he  puts  an  interval  of  forty  days  between  (he  lesurrection  and 
the  ascension.*  A  circumstance  which  might  be  urged  iu  favor  of  this  hypothesis  is, 
that  what  Luke  omits  in  the  angel's  message  (ver.  G)  is  precisely  the  conmiand  to  the 
disciples  to  return  to  Galilee.  But,  on  the  other  hand  :  1.  May  it  not  be  supposed  that 
Luke,  having  reached  the  end  of  the  lirst  part  of  his  history,  and  having  the  inten- 
tion of  lepealing  those  facts  as  the  point  of  departure  for  his  second,  thought  it 
enough  to  stale  them  in  the  most  summary  way  ?  2.  Is  it  probable  that  an  author, 
when  begmning  the  second  part  of  a  history,  should  modify  most  materially,  without 
in  the  hast  apprising  his  reader,  the  recital  of  facts  with  which  he  has  closed  his 
first?  "Would  it  not  have  been  simpler  and  more  honest  en  the  part  of  Luke  to  cor- 
rect tlie  last  page  of  his  lirst  volume,  instead  of  confiimiug  it  implicit!)'  as  he  does. 
Acts  1:1,2V  '3.  The  tots,  fhcn  (ver.  45).  may  embrace  an  iinlttinile  space  of  time. 
4.  Tills  more  general  sense  harmonizes  with  the  fragmentary  character  of  the  repoit 
given  of  those  last  utterances  :  Kow  He  said  unto  them,  ver.  44  :  and  He  said  unto 
th.  m,  ver.  40.  This  inexact  form  shows  clearly  that  Luke  abandons  narrative  strictly 
so  called,  to  give  as  he  closes  the  contents  of  the  last  sayings  of  Jesus,  reserving  to 
liimself  to  devel^^p  later  the  histoiical  account  of  those  last  daj^.s.  5.  The  author  of 
our  Gospel  followed  the  same  tradition  as  Paul  (see  the  appearance  to  Peter,  men- 
tioned only  by  Paul  arid  Luke).  It  is,  moreover,  impossil)le,  considering  his  relations 
to  that  ai)ostle  and  to  the  churches  of  Gieece,  that  he  was  not  acquainted  wilh  tlie 
first  Epislle  to  the  Coiinthians.  Now,  in  this  epistle  a  considerable  interval  is  neces- 
sarily supposed  between  tlie  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  first  because  it  mentions 
an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  more  than  500  brethren,  which  cannot  have  taken  place  on 
the  very  day  of  the  resurrection  ;  and  next,  because  it  expressly  distinguishes  two  ap- 
pearances to  the  assembled  apostles  :  the  one  undoubtedly  that  the  account  of  which 
we  have  just  been  reading  (1  Cor.  15  :  G)  ;  the  other,  which  must  have  taken  place 
later  (ver.  7).  These  facts,  irreconcilable  wilh  the  idea  attributed  by  Meyer  and 
others  to  Luke,  belonged,  as  Paul  himself  tells  us,  1  Cor.  15  :  1-3,  to  the  teaching 
generalh'  received  in  the  Church,  to  the  xapddodii.  How  could  they  have  been 
unknown  to  such  an  investigator  as  Luke  ?  How  could  they  have  escaped  him  in 
his  first  book,  and  that  to  recur  to  him  without  his  saying  a  word  in  the  second  ? 
Luke  therefore  here  indicates  summarily  the  substance  of  the  different  instrucUons 
given  by  Jesus  between  His  resurrection  and  ascension  all  comprised  in  the  words  of 
the  Acts  :  "  After  that  He  had  given  commandments  unto  the  apostles"  (Acts  1  :  2). 
Ver.  44  relates  how  Jesus  recalled  to  them  His  previous  predictions  regarding  Hi.-i 
death  and  resurrection,  which  fulfilled  the  prophecies  of  the  O.  T.  Ovroi  oi  Xuyoi, 
an  abridged  phfase  for  ravzcx  idriv  oi  Xuyoi :  "  These  events  which  have  just  come 
to  pass  are  those  of  which  I  told  you  in  the  discourses  which  you  did  not  under- 
stand." The  expression  :  while  Iiras  yet  with  you,  is  remarkable  ;  for  it  proves  that 
in  the  mind  of  .Jesus,  His  separation  from  them  was  now  consummated.  He  was 
with  them  only  exceptionally  ;  His  abode  was  elsewhere.  The  three  terms  ;  Moaes, 
Prophets,  Psalms,  may  denote  the  three  parts  of  the  O.  T.  among  the  Jews  :  the  Peutu- 

*  This,  be  it  remembered,  is  not  our  author's  idea,  hut  that  of  authors  who.se  view 
he  proceeds  to  overthrow.  He  has  a  way  of  pulling  himself  in  the  place  of  Un 
opponent,  for  the  moment. — J.  IL 


510  COMMENTAEY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

teucli ;  the  prophets,  comprising,  with  the  historical  books  (up  to  the  exile),  the  pro- 
phetical books  ;  the  Psalms,  as  representing  the  entire  group  of  the  hagiographa. 
Bleek  rather  thinks  that  Jesus  mentions  here  only  the  books  most  essential  from  a 
prophetic  point  of  view  {nefjt  e/uov).  If  it  is  once  admitted  that  the  division  of  the 
canon  which  we  have  indicated  existed  so  early  as  the  time  of  Jesus,  the  tirst  mean- 
ing is  the  more  natural. 

Jesus  closes  these  explanations  by  an  act  of  power  for  which  they  were  meant  to 
prepare.  He  opens  the  inner  sense  of  His  apostles,  so  that  the  Scriptures  shall  hence- 
forth cease  to  be  to  them  a  sealed  book.  This  act  is  certainly  the  same  as  that  de- 
scribed by  John  in  the  words  (30  :  22) :  "  And  He  breathed  ou  them,  saying.  Receive 
yet  he  Holy  Ghost."  The  only  difference  is,  that  John  names  the  efficient  cause,  Luke 
the  effect  produced.  The  miracle  is  the  same  as  that  which  Jesus  shall  one  day  work 
upon  Israel  collectively,  when  the  "ceil  shall  be  taken  amay  (2  Cor.  3  :  15,  IG). 

At  ver.  46  there  begins  a  new  resume — that  of  the  discourses  of  the  risen  Jesus 
referring  to  the  future,  as  the  preceding  bore  ou  the  past  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Knl  elnsv,  and  He  said  to  tliem  again.  So  true  is  it  that  Luke  here  gives  the  summary 
of  the  instructions  of  Jesus  during  the  forty  days  (Acts  1  :  3),  that  we  find  the  par- 
allels of  these  verses  scattered  up  and  down  in  the  discourses  which  the  other  Gospels 
give  between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  The  words  :  sliould  he  'preached  among 
allnations,  recall  Matt.  28  :  19  :  "  Go  and  teach  all  nations."  and  Mark  16  :  15  :  "  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature."  The  words  :  preach 
ing  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  recall  John  20  :  23  :  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit, 
they  are  remitted  unto  them."  Yer.  46  forms  the  transition  from  the  past  to  the 
future  (ver.  47).  'On  depends  on  :  it  was  so,  understood.  The  omisshm  of  kuI  ovtuq 
fSsi,  thus  it  behoved,  by  the  Alex,  cannot  be  justified  ;  it  has  arisen  from  negligence. 
Jesus  declares  two  necessities  :  the  one  founded  on  prophecy  {thus  it  is  written),  the 
other  ou  the  very  nature  of  things  {it  behoved).  The  Alex,  reading  :  rei^entance  unto 
pardon,  instead  of  repentance  and  pardon,  has  no  internal  probability.  It  would  be  a 
Xihrase  without  analogy  in  the  whole  of  the  N.  T.  The  partic.  ap^afievov  is  a  neut. 
impersonal  accusativo,  used  as  a  gerund.  The  Alex,  reading  ap^ajuevoi.  is  a  correction. 
Tlie  thought  that  the  kingdom  of  God  must  spread  from  Jerusalem  belonged  also  to 
prophecy  (Ps.  110  :  2,  et  al.)  ;  comp.  Acts  1  :  8,  where  this  idea  is  developed. 

To  carry  out  this  work  of  preaching,  there  must  be  men  specially  charged  with  it. 
These  are  the  apostles  (ver.  48).  Hence  the  viitis,  ye,  heading  the  proposition.  The 
tiiought  of  ver.  48  is  found  John  15  :  27  :  that  of  ver.  49,  John  15  :  26.  A  testimony  so 
important  can  only  be  given  worthily  and  effectively  with  divine  aid  (ver.  49).  'l6ov, 
behold,  expresses  the  unforeseen  character  of  this  intervention  of  divine  strength  ;  and 
f}u,  /,  is  foremost  as  the  correlative  of  viiel'i,  ye  (ver.  48)  :  "  Ye.  on  the  earth,  give 
testimony  ;  and  I,  from  heaven,  give  you  power  to  do  so."  When  the  disciples  shall 
feel  the  spirit  of  Pentecost,  they  shall  know  that  it  is  the  breath  of 'Jesus  glorified, 
and  for  what  end  it  is  imparted  to  them.  In  the  phrase,  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
the  word  promise  denotes  the  thing  promised.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  divine  promise 
par  excellence.  It  is  in  this  supreme  gift  that  all  others  are  to  terminate.  And  this 
aid  is  so  indispensable  to  them,  that  they  nmst  beware  of  beginning  the  work  before 
having  received  it.  The  command  to  tarry  in  the  city  is  no  wise  incompatible  with  a 
return  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee  between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  Everything 
depends  on  the  time  when  Jesus  spoke  this  word  ;  it  is  nut  specified  in  the  context. 
According  to  Acts  1  :  4,  it  was  on  the  day  of  His  ascension  that  Jesus  gave  them 


CHAP.    XXIV.  :  43-4!>.  511 

this  command.     The  Alex,  reject  tbe  word  Jerusalem,  ■which  indued  is  not  neces- 
sary after  ver.  47. 

On  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus. 

I.  The  Fact  of  the  Iiesuirectio7i.—The  apostles  bore  witness  to  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  and  on  this  testimony  founded  the  Churcli.  Such  is  (lie  indul)itai)le  liistorit.iil 
fact.  Yet  more  :  they  did  not  do  this  as  impostors.  Strauss  acknowledges  tliis. 
And  Volkmar,  in  his  mystical  language,  goes  liu;  length  ot  sajing  :  "It  is  one  of 
the  most  certain  facts  in  the  history  of  humanity,  I  hat  shortly  after  His  death  on  the 
cross,  Jesus  appeared  to  the  apostles,  risen  from  the  dead,  however  we  may  under- 
sianil  the  fact,  wliicii  is  witliout  analogy  in  history"  ("  die  Evangel."  p.  Gi2).  Let 
us  seek  the  explanation  of  the  fact 

Did  Jesus  return  to  life  from  a  state  of  lethargj\  as  Schleicrmaclier  thought? 
Strauss  has  once  for  all  executed  justice  on  this  hypothesis.  It  cannot  even  he  main- 
titined  without  destroying  the  moial  character  of  our  Lord  (comp.  our  "  Comm.  sur 
Jean,"  t.  ii.  p.  GGO  d  seq.). 

Were  those  appearances  of  Jesus  to  the  first  believers  only  visions  resulting  from 
their  exalted  state  of  mind?  Tiiis  is  the  hypothesis  which  Stiauss,  followed  by  nearly 
Jill  modem  rationalism,  substitutes  for  that  ot  Bchleieimacher.  This  explanatioa 
breaks  down  before  the  following  fads  : 

1.  The  apostles  did  not  in  llie  least  expect  the  body  of  Jesus  to  be  restored  to  life. 
They  confounded  the  resunection,  as  Weiz.^ficker  says,  with  the  Parousia.  Now, 
such  hallucinations  would  suppose,  on  the  contrary,  alively  expectation  of  the  bodily 
rea|tpearance  of  Jesus. 

2.  So  far  was  the  imagination  of  the  di.cciples  from  cicating  the  sensible  presence 
of  .Icsus,  that  at  llie  lirst  ihey  did  not  recogui/.e  Him  (Maiy  Magdalene,  ilie  two  of 
EuiMiausy  Jesus  was  certainly  not  to  them  an  expected  person,  whose  image  was 
conceived  in  Iheir  own  soul. 

3.  We  can  imagine  the  possibility  of  a  hiillucination  in  one  person,  but  not  in  two, 
twelve,  and  tinally,  tive  hundred  !  especially  if  it  be  remcmbeied  that  in  the  appear- 
ances descril)ed  we  have  not  to  do  with  a  simple  luminous  figure  floating  between 
htaven  and  earth,  but  with  a  i)erson  performing  positive  acts  and  uttering  exact  state- 
ments, wliich  were  heard  by  tlie  witnesses.  Or  is  the  truth  of  the  different  accounts 
to  be  suspected  ?  But  they  formed,  from  the  beginning,  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
ap((Stles  and  fiist  witnesses,  the  substance  of  the  public  preaching,  of  the  received 
tiadition  (1  Cor.  l."5).     Thus  we  should  be  tliiown  back -on  tlie  hypothesis  of  imposture. 

4.  The  em()ty  tomb  and  the  disappearance  of  the  body  remain  inexplicable.  If, 
as  the  narratives  allege,  llie  body  remained  in  the  hands  of  Jesus'  friends,  the  testi- 
mony which  they  gave  to  its  resurrection  is  an  imposture,  a  hypothesis  already  dis- 
carded. If  it  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  how  did  they  not  by  this  mode  of  <'on- 
vietion  overthrow  the  testimony  of  the  apostles?  Their  mouths  would  have  been 
closed  much  more  effectually  in  Ih's  way  than  by  scourging  them.  We  shall  not 
enter  into  the  discussion  of  all  Strauss's  expedients  to  escape  from  this  dilemma. 
They  betraj'  tlie  spirit  of  special  pleading,  and  can  only'  appear  to  tlie  iinprejudiced 
mind  in  the  light  of  subterfuges.*  But  Strauss  attempts  to  take  the  oflensive. 
Starling  from  Paul's  euumetalion  of  the  various  appearances  (1  Cor.  15),  he  reasons 
tliiis  :  Paul  himself  had  a  vision  on  the  way  to  Damascus  ;  now  he  put  all  the  appear- 
ances which  the  apostles  had  on  the  same  platform;  therefore  tbey  are  all  notliing 
but  visions.  This  reasoning  is  a  mere  sophism.  If  Strauss  means  that  Paul  himself 
regarded  the  appearance  which  had  coiiveited  him  as  a  simple  vision,  it  is  easy  to  le- 
fuie  iiim.  For  what  Paul  wishes  to  demonstrate,  1  Cor.  15,  is  the  l)odily  resurrection 
of  b(!lievers,  which  he  cannot  do  by  means  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus,  unless  he  re- 
gards them  all  as  bodily,  the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  If  Strauss  means,  on  the  con- 
tiary,  that  the  Dama.scus  appearance  was  really  nothing  eLse  than  a  virion,  though 
Paul  took  it  as  a  reality,  the  conclusion  which  he  draws  from  this  mistake  of  Paul's, 

*  In  opposition  to  Struu.ss's  supposition,  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  thrown  to  the 
dungiiill,  we  set  this  fact  of  public  noloiiety  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul  :  "  He  was 
buried  "  (1  Cor.  15  :  3). 


512  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

as  to  the  meaning  which  must  be  given  to  all  the  others,  has  not  the  least  logical 
value. 

Or,  finally,  could  God  have  permitted  the  Spirit  of  the  glorified  Jesus,  manifesting 
itself  to  the  disciples,  to  produce  effects  in  thetn  i^imil:lr  to  those  whicii  a  petccpiiun 
by  the  senses  would  have  produced  ?  So  Weiisse  and  Lotze  think.  Keini  has  also 
declared  for  this  hypothesis  in  his  "  Life  of  Jesus. "  *  But,  1.  Whatlhtn  of  the  nar- 
ratives in  which  we  see  the  Risen  One  seeking  to  demonstraie  to  I  he  apostles  that  He 
is  not  a  pure  spirit  (Luke  24:37-40)?  They  aie  pure  inventiuns,  audacious  false- 
hoods. 2.  As  to  this  glorified  Jesus,  wIh)  appeared  spiritually  to  the  apostles,  did  Pie 
or  did  He  not  mean  to  produce  on  them  the  imptession  that  He  was  present  bodily  ? 
If  He  did,  this  lieavenly  Being  was  an  impostor.  If  not,  He  must  have  been  very 
unskilful  in  His  manifestations.  In  botli  cases,  He  is  tlie  author  of  the  misuuder- 
standing  whicli  gave  rise  to  the  false  testimony  given  involuntarily  by  the  apostles 
3.  The  empty  tomb  remains  unexplained  on  this  hypothesis,  as  well  as  on  tl)e  preced- 
ing. Keim  has  added  nothing  to  what  his  predecessois  have  advanced  to  s.Jve  this 
diliicuUy.  In  reality,  there  is  but  one  sufHcient  account  to  be  given  of  the  empty 
tomb  :  the  tomb  was  found  empty,  because  He  who  had  been  laid  there  Himself  rose 
from  it.  T.>  this  opinion  of  Keim  we  may  apply  what  holds  of  his  explanation  of 
miracles,  and  of  his  way  of  looking  at  the  life  of  .lesus  in  genera!  :  it  is  too  much  or 
too  little  supernatural.  It  is  not  worth  while  combating  tlie  biblical  accounts,  when 
such  enormous  concessions  are  made  to  them  ;  to  deny,  for  example,  the  miraculous 
birth,  wlien  we  admit  the  absolute  holiness  of  Christ,  or  the  bodily  resurrection, 
when  we  grant  the  reality  of  the  appearances  of  the  glorified  Jesus.  Keim  for  some 
time  ascended  the  scale  ;  now  he  descends  again.      He  could  not  stop  theie. 

II.  Tke  Accounts  of  the  Resurrection. — These  accoums  are  in  reality  only  reports 
regarding  the  aopearances  of  the  Risen  One.  The  most  ancient  and  the  most  oflicial, 
if  one  may  so  speak,  is  that  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  15.  It  is  the  summary  of  the  oral  leach- 
ing received  in  the  Church  (ver.  2),  of  the  tradition  pioceeding  from  all  the  apostles 
together  (vers.  11-15).  Paul  enumerates  the  six  appearances,  as  t\)ilows  :  1.  To 
Cephas  ;  2.  To  the  Twelve  ;  3.  To  the  500  ;  4.  To  James  :  5.  To  the  Twelve  ;  6.  To 
himself.  "We  easily  make  out  in  Luke,  Nos.  1,  2,  5  in  his  Gospel  (24  :  34,  ver.  36  et 
seq.,  ver.  50  et  seq.)  ;  No.  6  in  the  Acts.  The  appearance  to  James  became  food  fur 
Ju  leo  Christian  legends.  It  is  elal)orated  in  the  apocryphal  books.  There  remains 
No.  3,  the  appearance  to  the  500.  A  strange  and  instructive  fact  !  No  appeal ance 
of  Jesus  is  better  authenticated,  more  unassailable  ;  none  was  more  public,  and  none 
produced  in  the  Church  so  decisive  an  effect  .  .  .  and  it  is  not  mentioned,  at  least 
as  such  in  any  of  our  four  Gospel  accounts  !  Huw  should  this  fact  put\ison  our  guard 
against  the  argumentum  e  silentio,  of  whicli  the  criticism  of  the  present  day  maives  so 
unbridled  a  use  !  How  it  ought  to  show  the  complete  ignorance  in  which  we  are  still 
left,  and  probably  shall  ever  be,  of  the  circumstances  which  presided  over  the  foima- 
tion  of  that  oral  tradition  whicli  has  exercised  so  decisive  an  influence  over  our  gospel 
historiography  !  Luke  could  not  be  ignorant  of  this  fact  if  he  had  read  but  once  the 
1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  conversed  once  on  the  subject  with  St.  Paul  .  .  . 
and  he  has  not  meutionel,  nor  even  dropped  a  hint  of  it  !  To  bring  down  the  com- 
position of  Luke  by  half  a  century  to  explain  this  omission,  serves  no  end.  Fur  the 
further  the  time  is  brou2;lit  down,  the  nnre  impossible  is  it  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  should  not  have  known  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

Matthew's  account  mentions  only  the  two  following  appearances  :  1.  To  the 
women  at  Jerusalem  ;  2.  To  the  Eleven,  on  a  mountain  of  Galilee,  where  Jesus  had 
appointed  them  to  meet  11\m.  (oi  kra^aro  Tropeveofjai).  We  at  once  recognize  in  No. 
1  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene,  John  2U  :  1-17.  The  second  is  that  gather- 
ing which  Jesus  had  convoked,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  before  His  death  ; 
then,  immediately  after  the  resurrection,  either  by  the  angel  or  by  His  own  mouth 
(Matthew).  But  it  is  now  only  that  Matthew  tells  us  of  the  rendezvous  appointed  for 
the  disciples  on  the  mountain.  This  confirms  the  opinion  which  we  had  already 
reached,  viz.,  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  call  which  was  not  addressed  to  the 
Eleven  only,  but  to  all  believers,  even  to  the  v/omen.  Jesus  wished  again  to  see  all 
His  brethren    and  to  constitute  His  flock  anew,  which  had  been  scattered  by  the  death 

*  Otherwise  in  his  "  Geschichtl.  Christus." 


niAi".    wiv.  :  4o— J'.i.  filJJ 

of  the  Shepherd.  The  choice  of  such  a  locality  as  that  which  Jesus  had  designated, 
conlirnis  tlie  oniu'lu«!ioii  that  y.vv  have  here  to  do  with  a  minicrou^  reunion.  VVe  can- 
not lIuTtfoie  doubt  that  it  is  llic  assenilily  of  500  f^poiicii  (.1'  by  Paul,  1  Cor.  1.1.  If 
i\latlhi'\v  (li)es  not  expressly  niention  ninic-  than  the  Eleven,  it  is  because  to  tliem 
>viis  addressed  the  coinniission  given  liy  Jesus,  "  to  ga  and  bapti/e  all  natinus.''  Tiie 
expression:  "  but  some  doubted,"  is  also  more  easily  expliiincd,  if  llie  Eleven  were 
not  alone.*  Matthew  diii  n(>t  intend  to  relate  the  tirst  appearances  by  which  the 
apostles,  whether  individually  or  together,  were  led  to  believe  (this  was  die  object  of 
the  appearances  v  hich  tuok  place  iU  .lerusaleni,  and  which  au;  nientinned  by  I.uko 
and  John),  but  that  which,  in  kieping  with  the  spiiit  of  his  (}ospel,  he  wished  to  set 
in  relief  as  the  climav  of  his  history — that,  namely,  to  which  he  li;id  niiule  allusion 
from  the  Legiuning,  and  which  may  be  called  the  Messiah's  taking  possession  of  the 
whole  v.-orld. 

Maik'a  account  is  original  as  far  as  ver.  8.  At  vcr.  [)  welind  :  1.  An  entirely  new 
beginning  ;  2.  From  ver.  H  a  cleaily  marked  dependence  on  Euke.  After  that,  Iheie 
occur  from  ver.  lo,  and  especially  in  ver.  17,  some  very  original  siiyings,  whicli  indi- 
cate an  independent  source.  The  composition  of  the  vvoik  thus  .seenis  to  have  been 
interrupted  at  ver.  8,  and  the  hook  to  have  remained  tintinished.  A  sure  proof  of 
this  is.  that,  the  appearance  of  Jesus  announced  to  the  \\omen  by  the  angel,  ver.  7,  is 
totally  wanting,  if,  with  the  Sinait.,  the  Vatic,  and  other  authorities,  the  Gospel  is 
closed  at  ver.  8.  From  ver.  9,  a  conclusion  lias  thus  been  added  b>  nuansof  our  Go.s. 
pel  of  Luke,  which  had  appeared  in  the  interval,  and  of  some  original  materials  pie- 
vlously  collected  with  this  view  by  the  author  (vers.  15,  Ki,  and  especially  17,  18). 

III.  IVie  Accounts  taken  as  a  ^Vyi/de. — If,  gathering  those  scattered  accounts,  we 
unite  them  in  one,  we  find  ten  appeaiances.  In  the  first  thiee.  Jesus  ccmfoits  jind 
raises,  fur  fie  has  to  do  with  downcast  hearts  :  lie  comfoits  ^lary  ]\lagdidene,  who 
seeks  His  lost  body  ;  lie  raises  Peter  after  his  fall  ;  lie  rranimates  the  hope  (.f  the 
two  going  to  Emmaus.  Thereafter,  in  the  following  three,  lie  fst!d)lislies  the  fiiiili 
of  His  future  witnesses  in  the  decisive  fact  of  His  resuriection  ■  He  fulfils  this  mis- 
eion  toward  the  api>stles  in  general,  and  t(>ward  Thomas;  and  He  nconslilules  the 
apostulate  by  leturning  to  it  its  head.  In  the  seventh  and  eighth  app(aranc(  s.  He 
impresses  on  the  anostolale  that  powerful  niissionaiy  imnul.se  which  lasts  still,  and 
He  adds  James  to  the  disciples,  specially  with  a  view  to  the  mission  for  Isi;iel.  lu 
the  last  two,  finalh',  He  completes  the  preceding  commands  by  some  special  insli no- 
tions (not  to  leave  Jerusalem,  to  wait  for  the  Spiiit,  etc.),  and  bids  them  His  lust  faie- 
well  ;  then,  shortly  afterward.  He  calls  Paul  specially  with  a  view  to  the  Gmtiles. 
This  tinity,  so  profoundly'  psychological,  so  holily  organic,  is  not  the  wo>k  of  any  of 
the  evangeli.-ls,  for  its  elements  are  scattered  over  the  four  accounts.  The  wisdom 
and  love  of  Christ  are  its  only  authors. f 

IV.  The  Importance  of  the  liesurrection. — This  event  is  not  merely  intended  to 
mark  out  Jesus  as  the  Saviour  ;  it  is  salvation  it  elf,  cnndtnuiati(  n  Knioved,  death 
vanquished.  "We  weie  perishing,  contlemned  ;  Je.sus  dies.  His  death  saves  us  ;  He 
is  the  first  who  enjoys  salvation.  He  rises  again  ;  then  in  Him  we  aie  made  to  live 
again.     Such  au  event  is  everything,  includes  everything,  or  it  has  no  exislt  ncc. 

G.  Tlie  Ascension  :  vers.  50-53. — The  resurrection  restored  humanity  in  that  one 
of  its  members  who,  by  His  ho'ylife  and  expiatory  death,  conquered  our  two  enemies 

*  If  this  expression  is  to  bo  applied  to  the  Eleven  themselves,  ' t  must  be  ex[>lained 
by  the  soujinary  character  of  this  account,  in  which  the  first  doubts  expiessed  in  the 
l)receding  appearances  are  applied  to  this,  the  only  one  related. 

f  See  the  remarkable  development  of  this  thought  by  M.  (iess,  in  his  new  work, 
"  Christi  Zeugniss  von  seiner  Person  und  seinem  Work,"  1870,  p.  VSo  el  serj.  "  This 
progression  in  the  appearances  of  Jesus  is  so  wisely  graduated,  that  we  are  not  at  lib- 
ty  to  refer  it  to  a  purely  subjective  origin.  Supposing  they  were  all  related  by  one 
and  the  same  evangelist,  it  might  doul/llcs';  he  attempted  tf>  make  him  the  author  of 
so  well  ordered  a  plan.  But  as  this  arrangement  results  only  from  combining  the 
first,  the  third,  and  the  fourth  Gospels  .  .  .  this  explanation  also  is  txcluded." 
Page  204. 


514  COMMENTARY    OX    al.   LLKE, 

— the  law  ■which  condemned  us  ])ecause  of  sin,  and  death,  which  overtook  us  because 
of  ihe  condemnation  of  the  law  (1  Cor.  15  :  56).  As  this  humanity  is  restored  in  the 
person  of  Christ  by  the  fact  of  His  resurrection,  the  ascension  raises  it  to  its  full 
height ;  it  realizes  its  destination,  which  from  the  begiuuiug  was  to  serve  as  a  free 
instrument  for  the  operations  of  the  infinite  God. 

Vers.  50-53.*  The  Ascension. — Luke  alone,  in  his  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts,  has 
given  us  a  detailed  view  of  the  scene  which  is  indicated  by  Paul,  1  Cor.  15  :  7,  and 
assumed  throughout  the  whole  N.  T.  Interpreters  like  Meyer  thiDk  themselves 
obliged  to  limit  the  ascension  of  Jesus  to  a  purelj^  spiiitual  elevation,  and  to  admit 
no  external  visible  fact  in  which  this  elevation  was  manifested.  Luke's  account  was 
the  production  of  a  luter  tradition.     We  shall  examine  this  hypothesis  at  the  close. 

The  meaning  of  the  ^-p/aye  <^e,  Then  He  led  them,  is  simply  this  :  "All  these 
instructions  finished,  He  led  them  .  .  ."  This  expression  says  absolutel^Miothing 
as  to  the  time  when  the  event  took  place.  The  term  avva?u^6fievoc,  having  usuembled. 
Acts  1 :  4,  proves  that  Jesus  had  specially  convoked  the  apostles  in  order  to  take  leave 
of  them.  'EwS  fis  (T.  R.),  and  still  more  decidedly  twS  rrpus  (Alex.),  signifies,  nut  as 
far  as,  but  to  about,  in  the  direction  and  even  to  the  neighborhood  of  .  .  .  There 
is  thus  no  contradiction  to  Acts  1  :  13.f  Like  the  high  priest  when,  coming  forth 
from  the  temple,  he  blessed  the  people,  Jesus  comes  forth  from  the  invisible  world 
once  more,  before  altogether  shutting  Himself  up  within  it,  and  gives  His  own  a  last 
benediction.  Then,  in  the  act  of  performing  this  deed  of  love,  He  is  withdrawn  to  a 
distance  from  thern  toward  the  top  of  the  mountain,  and  His  visible  presence  vanishes 
from  their  e5'es.  The  words  kqI  avEcbipero  eli  tov  ovpavbv  are  omitted  in  the  Sina'U., 
the  Cantab.,  and  some  copies  of  the  Kala.  Could  this  phrase  be  the  gloss  of  a  copy- 
ist ?  But  a  gloss  would  probably  have  been  borrowed  from  the  narrative  of  the  Acts, 
and  that  book  presents  no  analogous  expression.  Might  not  this  omission  rather  be, 
like  so  many  others,  the  result  of  negligence,  perhaps  of  confounding  the  two  Kal.  ? 
We  can  hardly  believe  that  Luke  would  have  ."aid  so  curtly,  Ee  was  parted  from  them, 
without  adding  how.  The  'imperf ect  avedi per o,  lie  teas  carried  up,  forms  a  pictuie. 
It  reminds  us  of  the  Oeupelv,  hcliold,  John  G  :  G2.  The  Cantab,  and  some  Mss.  of  the 
Itala  omit  (ver.  52)  the  word  TrpoaKwrjaavrec,  having  icorshipped  Ili)ii,  perhaps  In  conse- 
quence of  confounding  avrai  and  avrov.  The  verb  npuaKwelv,  to  prostrate  otie'  s  self ,  in 
this  context,  can  mean  only  the  adoration  which  is  paid  to  a  divine  being  (Ps.  2  :  12). 
The  joy  of  the  disciples  caused  by  this  elevation  of  their  Master,  which  is  the  pledge 
of  the  victory  of  His  cause,  fulfilled  the  word  of  Jesus  :  "  If  ^^e  loved  me,  j'e  would 
rejoice  because  I  go  to  my  Father"  (.John  14  :  28).  The  point  to  be  determined  is, 
whether  the  more  detailed  account  in  Acts  (the  cloiid,  the  two  glorified  men  who 
appear)  is  an  amplification  of  the  scene  due  to  the  pen  of  Luke,  or  whether  the 
account  in  the  Gospel  was  only  a  sketch  which  he  proposed  to  complete  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  second  treatise,  of  which  this  scene  was  to  form  the  starting-point.  If 
our  explanation  of  vers.  44-49  is  well  founded,  we  cannot  but  incline  to  the  second 

*  Yer.  50.  A.  B.  C.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr^<=''.  omit  £,-w  after  avrovi.  \k.  B.  C.  D.  L. 
2  Mnn.,  £w5  7rpo9  instead  of  eu^  «5.  Ver.  51.  ii.  D  It""'',  omit  the  words  nai  aveip^ps-o 
ci3  TOV  ovpavoj.  Ver.  52.  D.  It"''"!,  omit  Ihe  words  ■7:pocKvvj]iavTEi  avrov.  Ver.  53. 
D.  It^'W.  omit  the  words  kul  evAoyowreS.  i^.  B.  C.  L.  omit  aivovvrei  Kai.  ^.  C.  D.  L. 
n.  some  Mnn.  It"'"',  omit  niirjv. 

f  See  the  interesting  passage  of  M.  Felix  Bovet  on  the  spot  from  which  the  ascen- 
sion took  place,  "  Voyage  en  Tene-Sainle,"  p.  235,  etseq. 


CHAP.   XXIV.  :  50-53.  515 

view.  And  the  more  we  recoguize  up  to  this  poiut  iu  Luke  an  author  who  writea 
couscieutiously  aud  fioni  couvicliou,  Ihu  more  sliall  we  feel  obliged  to  reject  the  tirtit 
alternative.  Tiie  uuuieious  omissions,  vers.  5"3,  53,  in  the  Cantab,  and  some  mss. 
of  the  Itala  cannot  well  be  explained,  except  by  the  haste  which  the  copyists  seem 
to  have  made  as  they  approached  the  end  of  their  work.  Or  should  the  preference 
be  given,  as  Ti.scheudorf  gives  it,  to  this  abridged  text,  contrary  to  all  the  other 
authorities  together?  U  a  b,  which  read  ulvouvrei  without  kuI  ev/.oyoviTei  ;  ii.  B.  C. 
L.,  which  read  ev/.oyoCvTti  without  ahovfTei  ku!,  mutually  condemn  one  another,  and 
so  conlirm  the  received  reading,  prai«iii(f  and  blessing  God.  Perhaps  the  omission  iu 
Lolli  cases  arises  trvMU  confounding  the  two — vrcc.  k'tvelv,  to  praise,  refers  to  the 
person  of  God  ;  ev/.u}ea',  to  bless,  to  His  benefits.  The  disciples  do  here  what  was 
done  at  the  beginning  by  the  shepherds  (2  .  30).  But  what  a  way  traversed,  what  a 
series  of  glorious  beuelits  between  tlio-^se  two  acts  of  homage  !  The  last  words,  these 
iu  particular  :  "  They  were  continually  in  the  temple,"  form  the  transition  to  the 
book  of  Acts. 

On  the  Ascension. 

At  first  the  apostles  regarded  the  ascension  as  only  the  last  of  those  numerous  dis- 
appeatauces  wliicli  they  had  witnessed  during  the  forty  days  (a(pavToi  h/ivem,  ver. 
31).  Jesus  regarded  it  as  the  elevation  of  His  person,  in  the  character  of  iSon  of  man, 
to  that  juopa/}  Oeuv  (Phil.  2  :  G).  that  divine  state  which  He  had  renounced  when  He 
came  under  the  coudilions  of  human  existence.  Having  reached  the  term  of  His 
earthly  career.  He  had  asked  back  Uis  glory  (John  17  :  5)  ;  the  ascension  was  the 
answer  to  His  prayer. 

Modern  criticism  objects  to  the  realitj'  of  the  ascension  as  an  external  fact,  on  the 
ground  of  the  Copernican  system,  which  excludes  the  belief  tliat  heaven  is  a  particu- 
lar pla(;e  situated  above  our  heads  and  l)eyon(i  the  stars.  Those  who  raise  this  objec- 
tion labor  under  a  ver^"  gross  misunderstanding.  According  to  the  biblical  view, 
the  ascension  is  not  the  exchange  of  one  [ilttce  for  another  ,  it  is  a  v\vdn^2.e  of  state,  and 
this  change  is  precisely  the  emancipation  from  all  confinement  within  the  limits  of 
sj)ace,  exaltation  to  omnipresence.  The  cloud  was,  as  it  were,  the  veil  which  cov- 
ered this  transformation.  The  right  hand  of  a  God  everywhere  present  cannot; 
designate  u  paiticilar  place.  Silting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  mu;t  also  include 
omniscience,  which  is  closely  bound  up  with  omnipresence,  as  well  as  omnipotence, 
of  which  the  right  hand  of  God  is  the  natural  symbol.  The  Apocalypse  expresses  in 
its  figurative  language  the  true  meaning  of  the  ascension,  when  it  represents  the 
glorified  Son  of  manias  the  Lamb  with  seven  horns  (omnipotence)  and  seven  eyes 
(omniscience).  This  divine  niode  of  being  does  not  exclude  bodily  existence  in  the 
case  of  Jesus.  Comp.,  in  Paul,  the  ao/mriKdi.  bodily.  Col.  2  :  9,  aud  the  expression 
spiritual  body  applied  to  the  second  Adam,  1  Cor.  15  :  44.  We  cannot,  from  experi- 
ence, form  an  idea  of  this  glorified  bodily  existence.  But  it  may  be  conceived  as  a 
power  of  appearing  sensibly  and  of  external  activity,  operating  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
will  alone,  and  at  every  point  of  space. 

Another  objection  "is  taken  from  the  omission  of  this  scene  in  the  other  biblical 
documents.  But,  1.  Paul  expressly  mentions  an  appearance  to  all  the  apostles,  1 
Cor.  15  :  7.  Placed  at  the  clo.se  of  the  whole  series  of  previous  appearances  (among 
them  that  to  the  500),  and  immediately  before  that  which  decided  his  own  conversion, 
this  ajipearance  can  f>nly  be  the  one  at  the  ascension  as  related  by  Luke.  This  fact  is 
decisive  ;  for,  according  to  vers.  ?,  and  11,  it  is  the  Tra/ta'iSootS,  the  general  tradition  of 
the  churches,  proceeding  from  the  apnstles,  which  Paul  sums  up  in  this  passage.  2. 
However  Mark's  mutiiaTed  conclusion  may  be  exii'ained,  the  words  :  "  So  then,  after 
the  Lord  had  thus  spoken  unto  them.  He  was  received  tip  into  heaven,  and  sat  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,"  supp  ise  some  .sensilile  fact  or  other,  which  served  as  a  basis  for 
fluch  expressions.  The  sime  holds  of  the  innumerable  declarations  of  the  epistles 
(Paul,  Peter,   Hebrews,  James),  which  speak  of  the  heavenly  glory  of  Jesus  and  of 


516  COMMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Doctrines,  with  tlie  apostles,  are  never  more 
Hum  llie  omniciitiiiy  on  fuels.  Sucli  expressions  must  have  a  historical  substratum. 
3.  No  doubt,  Jolm  does  not  relate  ihe  ascension.  But  can  it  be  said  that  he  does  not 
mention  it,  wben  this  saying  occurs  in  his  Gispel  (fi  :  G2)  :  "  What  and  if  ye  shall 
see  the  Sou  of  man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before?"  The  term  Otupeiv,  stiictly  to 
contemplate,  and  the  pres.  partic.  dvai^aivovra,  anceiidi/ig,  forbid  us  to  thinii  of  an  event 
of  a  purely  spiritual  nature  (comp.  Baumlein,  ad.  h.  I.).  Why,  then,  does  he  not 
relate  the  historical  scene  of  the  ascension  ?  Because,  as  his  starting-point  was  tul^eu 
after  the  baptism,  which  on  this  account  he  does  not  relate,  his  conclusion  is  placed 
before  tlie  ascension,  which  for  this  reasun  lie  leaves  unrelated.  The  idea  of  his  book 
was  Ibe  develoimient  of  faith  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles  fnmi  its  birth  to  its  cou- 
summatiou.  Now  their  faith  was  born  with  the  visit  of  .John  and  Andrew,  chap.  1, 
after  the  baptism  ;  and  it  had  received  the  seal  of  perfection  in  the  profession  of 
Thomas,  chap.  20,  before  tlie  ascension.  That  the  evangelist  did  not  think  of  relat- 
ing all  the  appearances  which  he  knew,  is  proved  positively  by  that  on  the  shores  of 
the  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  which  is  related  after  the  close  of  the  book  (20  :  30,  31),  and 
in  an  appendix  (chap.  21)  composed  either  by  the  author  himself  (at  least  as  far  as 
ver.  23),  or  based  on  a  tradition  emanating  from  him.  He  was  therefore  aware  of  this 
appearance,  aad  he  had  nat  mentioned  it  in  his  Gospel,  like  Luke,  who  could  not  be 
ignorant  of  the  appearance  to  the  500,  and  who  has  not  mentioned  it  either  in  his 
Gospel  or  in  Acts.  Wliat  reserve  should  such  facts  impose  on  criticism,  however 
little  gifted  with  caution  !  4.  And  the  following  must  be  very  peculiaily  boine  in 
mind  in  judging  of  Matthew's  narrative.  It  is  no  doubt  strange  to  tind  this  evangel- 
ist relating  (besides  tlie  appearance  to  the  women,  wiiich  is  intended  merely  to  pre- 
pare for  that  following  Ity  the  message  which  is  given  them)  only  a  single  appearance 
that  vvhich  took  place  on  the  mountain  of  Galilee  where  Jesus  had  appointed  His  dis- 
ciples, as  well  as  the  women  and  all  the  faithful,  to  meet  Him,  and  where  He  gives 
the  Eleven  their  commission.  Tliis  appearance  cannot  be  any  of  those  which  Luke 
and  John  place  in  .Judea.  It  conies  nearer  by  is  locality  to  that  which,  according 
t,)  John  21,  took  place  in  Galilee  ;  but  it  cannot  be  identified  with  i(,  for  tlie  scene  of 
the  latter  was  the  seasliore.  As  we  have  seen,  it  can  oni}'  be  the  appearance  to  the 
500  mentioned  by  Paul.  The  meeting  on  a  mountain  is  in  perfect  keepmg  with  so 
numerous  an  assembly  thougli  Matthew  mentions  none  but  the  Eleven,  because  the 
grand  aim  is  that  mission  of  world-wide  evangelization  wliich  Jesus  gives  them  that 
day.  Matthew's  intention  was  not,  as  we  have  alrearly  seen,  to  mention  all  ilie  dif- 
ferent appearances,  either  in  .Judea  or  Galilee,  by  which  Jesus  had  reawakened  the 
jjersonal  faith  of  the  apostles,  and  concluded  His  earthly  connection  with  them.  His 
narrative  had  exclusively  in  view  that  solemn  appearance  in  which  Jesus  declaied 
Himself  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  the  sovereign  of  the  nations,  and  had  given  the 
apostles  their  mission  to  conquer  for  Him  the  ends  of  the  earih.  So  true  is  it  that 
his  narrative  must  terminate  in  this  supreme  fact,  that  Jesus  announced  it  before  His 
death  (Matt.  26  :  32),  and  that,  immediately  after  the  resurrection,  the  angel  and  Jesus 
Himself  spoke  of  it  to  the  women  (28  :  7-10).  Indeed,  this  scene  was,  in  the  view  of 
the  author  of  the  first  Gospel,  the  real  goal  of  the  theocratic  revelation,  the  climax  of 
the  ancient  covenant.  If  the  day  of  the  ascension  was  the  most  important  in  respect 
of  the  x>ersonal  development  of  Jesus  (Luke),  the  day  of  His  appearance  on  the  moun- 
tain showed  the  accomplishment  of  the  Messianic  programme  .sketched  1:1:  "  Jesus, 
tlie  GJu'id,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  It  was  the  decisive  day  for  the 
establisliment  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  jMatthew's  great  thought.  Criticism 
is  on  a  false  tack  when  it  assumes  that  every  evangelist  has  said  all  that  he  could 
have  said.  With  oral  tradition  spread  and  received  in  the  Church,  the  gospel  histori- 
ography did  not  require  to  observe  such  an  anxious  gait  as  is  supposed.  It  was  not 
greatly  concerned  to  relate  an  appearance  more  or  less.  The  essential  thing  was  to 
affirm  the  resurrection  itself.  The  contrast  between  the  detailed  official  enumeration 
of  Paul,  1  Cor.  15,  aud  each  of  our  four  Gospels,  proves  this  to  a  demonstration. 
Especiall}'  does  it  seem  to  us  thoroughly  illogical  to  doubt  the  fact  of  the  ascension, 
as  Meyer  does,  because  of  Matthew's  silence,  and  not  to  extend  this  doubt  to  all  the 
appearances  in  Judea,  about  which  he  is  equally  silent. 

The  following  passage  from  tlie  letter  of  Barnabas  has  sometimes  been  used  in 
evidence  :  '*  We  celebrate  with  joy  that  eighth  day  on  which  Jesus  rose  from  the 


CHAP.   XXIV.  :  50-53.  617 

dc'iul.  and,  after  lmvin<:  manifested  ITiniself,  ascended  to  heaven."  The  author,  it  is 
said,  like  Luke,  places  the  asci^nsinu  und  Ihe  lesurrecliou  dix  ihe  same  day.  But  it 
may  he  that  m  Ihis  expression  lie  puts  Ihein  not  on  tlie  .^ame  day  taken  ahsolutely, 
Iml  on  the  same  day  of  the  iOtck\  the  (i(//it/i,  Sunday  (vvhi(  li  no  d()ul)t  would  involve 
an  erior  as  to  ilie  ascension).  Or,  indeeil,  this  siiyini^  may  signify,  according  to 
John  20  :  17,  whi(;h  in  that  case  it  would  reproduce,  that  the  ascending  of  Jesus  to 
heaven  htgan  with  the  resurrection,  and  on  that  very  day.  lu  reality,  fiom  that  lime 
Ih'  iras  nii'iiiorc  wil/t  His  own,  as  He  Himself  says  (Luke  24  :  44).  He  helonged  to  a 
higher  sphere  of  e.xisleuee.  He  only  iiiduijet'ted  Jlunnelf  here  helow.  He  no  longer 
lived  here.  lie  inu  uficeiiding,  to  use  His  own  expression.  According  to  this  view, 
His  resurrection  and  the  begmning  of  His  elevation  (Kiu-Kat)  tlierefore  took  place  the 
{'ame  day.  The  oipression":  after  liacin;/  maiiifcxicd  Ihmxclf,  would  refer  to  the 
appearances  whi(!h  took  place  on  the  resurrection  day,  and  after  which  He  euleied 
into  the  celestial  sphere. 

lu  any  case,  the  resurreelion  once  admitted  as  a  real  fact,  the  question  is,  bow 
Jesus  left  the  earth.  By  stealth,  without  saying  a  word  ?  One  fine  day,  without  any 
warniug  whatever,  He  ceased  to  reappear?  Is  this  mode  of  acting  compatible  with 
His  lender  love  for  his  own  ?  Or,  indeed,  according  to  M.  de  Bunsen,  His  body, 
exhausted  by  the  last  effort  which  His  resurrection  had  cost  Him  (Jesus,  according 
to  this  writer,  was  the  auihor  of  this  event  by  the  energy  of  His  will),  succum.hed  iu 
a  missionaiv  joiunev  to  Phcnicia,  where  He  went  to  seek  bclieveis  among  the  Gen- 
tiles (John  10  :  17,  iS  ;  comp.  with  ver.  16)  ;  and  having  died  there  unknown,  Jesus 
was  likewise  buried  !  But  in  this  case.  His  body  raised  from  the  dead  must  have 
dilfcretl  in  no  resi)ect  from  the  body  which  He  had  had  during  His  lite.  _  And  how 
are  we  to  explain  all  the  accounts,  from  which  it  aiipears  that,  between  His  resuriec- 
lion  and  ascension.  His  body  was  already  under  peculiar  conditions,  and  iu  course 
of  glorification  ?  Tlie  reality  of  such  a  fact  as  tliat  related  by  Luke  in  his  account  of 
the  asceusiou  is  therefore  indubitable,  both  from  the  special  standpoint  of  faitli  la 
the  resurrection,  and  from  the  standpoint  of  faith  in  general.  The  ascension  is  a 
postulate  of  faith. 

The  ascension  perfects  iu  the  person  of  the  Son  of  man  God's  design  in  regard  to 
humanity.  To  make  of  sanctified  believers  a  family  of  children  of  God,  perfectly 
like  that  only  Son  who  is  the  prototype  of  the  whole  race— such  is  God's  plan.  His 
eternal  -aiwhEmQ  (Rom.  8  :  28,  29),  with  a  view  to  which  He  created  the  universe.  As 
the  plant  is  the  unconscious  agent  of  the  life  of  nature,  man  was  intended  to  become 
the  free  and  intelligent  organ  of  the  holy  life  of  the  personal  God.  jSTow,  to  realize 
this  plan,  God  thought  good  {ew^nKriae)  to  accomplish  it  first  in  one  ;  Eph.  2:6: 
"  He  bath  raised  us  up  in  Christ,  and  made  us  sit  in  Him  in  the  heavenly  places  ;" 
1  :  10  :  "  According  to  the  purpose  which  He  had  to  gather  together  all  things  under 
ONE  head,  Christ  ;"  Heb.  2  :  10  :  "  Wishing  to  bring  many  sons  to  glory.  He  per- 
fected THE  Capt.\in  OP  SALVATION."  Such  was,  according  to  the  divine  plan,  the 
first  act  of  salvation.  The  second  was  to  unite  to  this  One  individual  believers,  and 
thus  to  make  them  partakers  of  the  divine  state  to  which  the  Son  of  man  had  been 
raised  (Rom.  8  :  29).  This  assimilation  of  the  faithful  to  His  Son  God  accomplished 
by  means  of  two  things,  which  are  the  necessary  complement  of  the  facts  of  the  Gos- 
pel hi.-tory  :  Pentecost,  whereby  the  Lord's  moral  being  becomes  that  of  the  believer  ; 
and  the  Parousia,  whereby  the  external  condition  of  the  sanctified  believer  is  raised 
to  the  same  elevation  as  that  of  our  glorified  Lord.  First  holiness,  then  glory,  for  the 
body  as  for  the  head  :  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  which  becomes  ours  by  Pentecost  ;  the 
ascension  of  Jesus,  which  becomes  ours  by  the  Parousia. 

Thus  it  is  that  each  Go.spel,  and  not  only  that  which  we  have  just  been  explain- 
ing, has  the  Acts  for  its  second  volume,  and  for  its  thiid  the  Apocalypse. 


CONCLUSION. 


From  our  exegetical  studies  we  puss  to  the  work  of  criticism,  which  will  gather  up 
the  fruits.  This  will  bear  on  four  puints  : 

1.  The  characteristic  features  of  our  Gospel. 
II.  Its  composition  (aim,  time,  place,  author). 

III.  Its  sources,  and  its  relation  to  the  other  two  synoptics. 

IV.  The  beffinning  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  first  chapter  will  establish  the  facts  ;  in  the  following  two  we  shall  ascend 
from  these  to  their  causes  ;  the  aim  of  the  fourth  is  to  replace  the  question  of  gospel 
literature  in  its  historical  position. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE   CHARACTERISTICS  OP   THE  THIRD  GOSPEL. 

We  have  to  characterize  this  writing— 1«C.  As  a  historical  production  ;  2d.  As  a 
religious  work  ;  3d.  As  a  literary  composition. 

I. — Historical  Point  of  View. 

The  distinctive  features  of  Luke's  narrative,  viewed  historiographically,  appear  to 
us  to  be  :  Fulness,  accuracy,  and  continuity. 

A.  In  respect  of  quantity,  this  Gospel  far  surpasses  the  other  8yu.  The  entire 
matter  contained  in  the  three  may  be  included  in  172  sections.*  Of  this  number, 
Luke  has  127  sections,  that  is  to  say,  three  fourths  of  the  whole,  while  Matthew  i)re- 
seuts  only  114,  or  two  thirds,  and  Mark  84,  or  the  half. 

This  superiority  in  fulness  which  distinguishes  Luke  will  appear  still  more,  if  we 
observe  that,  after  cutting  oif  the  fifty  six  sections  which  are  common  to  the  three 
accounts,  and  form  as  it  were  the  indivisible  inheritance  of  the  Syn.,  then  the  eight- 
een which  are  common  to  Luke  and  Matthew  alone,  finally  the  five  which  he  has  in 
common  with  Mark,  there  remain  as  his  own  peculiar  portion,  forty-eight — that  is  to 
say,  mure  than  a  fourth  of  the  whole  materials,  while  Matthew  has  fur  his  own  only 
t".venty-two,  and  Mark  only  five. 

Once  more,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  those  materials  which  exclusively  belong  to 

*  There  is  necessarily  much  arbitrariness  in  the  way  of  marking  off  those  sec- 
tions, as  well  as  in  tlie  way  in  which  the  parallelism  between  the  three  narratives  is 
established,  especially  as  concerns  the  discourses  which  are  more  or  less  common  to 
Matthew  and  Luke.  M.  Reuss  ("  Gesch.  der  heil.  iSchriFten  N.  T."),  making  the  sec- 
tions larger,  ot)iains  only  124.  This  difference  may  affect  considerably  the  figures, 
which  indicate  the  comparative  fulness  of  the  three  Gospels. 


COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE.  519 

Luke  are  as  important  iis  they  are  abundant.  We  have,  for  example,  the  narratives 
of  tlie  infancy  ;  those  of  the  raising  of  the  son  of  tlie  widow  of  Nain,  of  the  woman 
who  was  a  sinner  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  of  tlie  entertainment  at  the  house  of  ]\lartha 
and  Mar}',  of  the  tears  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem  ;  the  parables  of  the  good  Samaritan, 
the  lost  sheep  and  the  lost  drachma,  the  i)rodigal  son,  tiie  faithless  steward,  the 
wicked  rich  man,  the  unjust  judge,  the  Pharisee  and  the  publicau  ;  the  prayer  of 
Jesus  for  His  executioners,  Tlis  conversation  with  the  thief  on  the  cross,  the  appear- 
ance to  the  two  disciples  going  to  Emmuus,  the  ascension.  How  diminished  would 
the  portrait  be  which  remains  to  us  of  Jesus,  and  what  an  impoverishment  of  the 
knuwleiige  which  we  have  ot  His  teachings,  if  all  these  pieces,  which  are  preserved 
by  Luke  alone,  were  wanting  to  us  ! 

B.  But,  where  history  is  concerned,  abundance  is  of  less  importance  than  accu- 
racy. Is  the  wealth  of  Luke  of  good  quality,  and  does  his  treasure  not  contain  base 
coin?  We  believe  that  all  sound  exegesis  of  Luke's  narrative  will  result  in  paying 
homage  to  his  tidelity.  Are  the  parts  in  question  those  which  are  peculiar  to  him— the 
accounts  of  the  infancy  (chaps.  1  and  2),  the  account  of  the  journey  (9  :  51 — 19  :  27) 
the  view  of  the  ascension  (24  :  50-53)  ?  We  have  found  the  first  confirmed,  so  far  as 
the  central  fact— the  miraculous  birth— is  concerned,  by  the  absolute  holiness  of 
Christ,  which  is  tlie  unwavering  testimony  of  His  consciousness,  and  which  involves 
a  different  origin  in  His  case  from  ours  ;  and  as  to  the  details,  by  the  purely  Jewish 
character  of  the  events  and  discourses — a  character  which  would  be  inexplicable  after 
tlie  rupture  between  the  Church  and  the  synagogue.  The  supernatural  in  these  ac- 
counts has,  besides,  nothing  in  common  with  the  legendary  marvels  of  the  apocryphal 
books,  nor  even  with  the  alread}^  altered  traditions  which  appear  in  such  authors  as 
Papias  and  Justin,  llie  nearest  successors  of  the  apostles,  on  different  points  of  tlie 
Gospel  history.  In  studying  carefully  the  account  of  the  journey,  we  have  found 
tliat  all  the  improbabilities  which  are  alleged  against  it  vanish.  It  is  not  a  straight 
journey  to  Jerusalem  ;  it  is  a  slow  and  solemn  itineration,  all  the  incidents  and  adven- 
tures of  which  Jesus  turns  to  account,  in  order  to  educate  His  disciples  and  evangel- 
ize the  multitudes.  He  thus  finds  the  opportunity  of  vi&iling  a  country  wliich  till  then 
liad  not  enjoyed  His  ministry,  the  southern  parts  of  Galilee,  adjacent  to  Samaria,  as 
well  as  Perea.  Thereby  an  important  blank  in  Hi*  work  in  Israel  is  filled  up.  Fi- 
nally, the  sketch  of  that  prolonged  journey  to  Jeiusalcm,  without  presenting  exactly 
the  same  type  as  John's  narrative,  which  divides  this  epoch  into  four  distinct  jour- 
neys (to  tlie  feast  of  Tabernacles,  chap.  8  ;  to  the  feast  of  Dedication,  chap.  10  ;  to 
Bethany,  chap.  11  ;  to  the  last  Passover,  chap.  12),  yet  resembles  it  so  closely,  that  it 
is  impossible  not  to  take  this  circumstance  as  materially  confirming'  Luke's  account. 
It  is  a  first,  though  imperfect,  rectification  of  the  abrupt  contrast  lietweeu  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  and  the  last  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  which  characterizes  the  synoptical 
view  ;  it  is  the  beginning  of  a  return  to  the  full  historical  truth  restored  by  John.* 

We  have  found  the  account  of  the  ascension  not  only  confirmed  by  the  apostolic 

*  Sabatier  ("  Es.sai  sur  les  sources  de  la  vie  de  Jesus,"  pp  31  and  32  :  "  Luke, 
witliout  seeking  or  intending  it,  but  merely  as  the  result  of  his  new  investigations, 
has  destroyed  the  faciitious  framework  of  the  synoptical  tradition,  and  has  given  us 
a  glimpse  of  a  new  one,  larger,  without  being  less  simple.  Luke  is  far  from  having 
cleared  away  ever}' difliculty.  .  .  .  He  had  loo  much  light  to  be  satisfied  wilii 
following  in  the  track  of  his  predecessors  ;  he  had  not  enongii  to  reach  the  full  reality 
of  the  Gospel  history.  He  thus  serves  admirably  to  form  the  transition  between  the 
first  two  Gospels  and  the  fourth. " 


520  COMMENTARY    ON   ST.  LUKE. 

view  of  the  gloriflcatioa  of  Jesus  which  fills  the  epistles,  by  the  last  verses  of  Mark, 
and  by  the  saying  of  Jesus,  John  6  :  G2,  but  also  by  the  express  testimony  of  Paul,  1 
Cor.  15  :  7,  to  an  appearance  granted  to  all  the  apostles,  which  nuist  have  taken  place 
between  that  granted  to  the  500  brethren  and  that  on  the  way  to  Damascus. 

So  far,  then,  from  regarding  those  paits  as  arbitrary  additions  which  Luke  took 
tlie  liberty  of  making  to  the  Gospel  history,  we  are  bound  to  recognize  them  as  real 
historical  data,  which  serve  to  complete  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  our  Lord's 
life. 

We  think  we  have  also  established  the  almost  uniform  accuracy  shown  by  Luke 
in  distributing,  under  a  multitude  of  different  occasions,  discourses  which  are 
grouped  by  Matthew  in  one  whole  ;  we  have  recognized  the  same  character  of  fidelity 
in  the  historical  introductions  which  he  almost  always  prefixes  to  those  discourses. 
After  having  established,  as  we  have  done,  the  connection  between  the  saying  about 
the  lilies  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of  the  air  and  the  parable  of  the  foolish  rich  man 
(chap.  12),  the  similar  relation  between  the  figures  used  in  the  less(;n  about  prayer 
and  the  parable  of  the  importunate  friend  (chap.  11) — who  will  prefer,  historically 
speaking,  the  place  assigned  by  Matthew  to  those  two  lessons  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  where  the  images  used  lose  the  exquisite  fitness  which  in  Luke  they  derive 
from  their  connection  with  the  narratives  preceding  them  '^  What  judicious  critic, 
after  feeling  the  breach  of  continuity  which  is  produceci  orf  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
by  the  insertion  of  the  Loid's  Prayer  (Matt.  6),  will  not  prefer  the  characteristic  scene 
which  Luke  has  described  of  the  circumstances  in  which  this  form  of  prayer  was 
tauglit  to  the  apostles  (Luke  11  : 1,  et  seq.)t  How  can  we  doubt  that  the  menacing 
farewe'l  to  the  cities  of  Galilee  was  uttered  at  the  time  at  which  Luke  has  it  (cha]). 
10),  immediately  after  his  departure,  9  :  51,  rather  than  in  the  middle  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,  where  it  is  put  by  Matthew  ?  The  same  is  true  of  the  cases  in  which  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  can  only  be  fully  explained  by  the  surroundings  in  which  Luke 
places  them;  e.g.,\.\xQ  answers  of  Jesus  to  the  three  aspirants  after  the  kingdom  of 
God  (chap.  9)  would  be  incomprehensible  and  hardly  justifiable  on  the  eve  of  a  mere 
excursion  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea  (Matt.  8),  while  they  find  their  full  explanation 
at  the  time  of  a  final  departure  (Luke). 

The  introductions  with  which  Luke  prefaces  those  occasional  teachings  are  not  in 
favor  with  modern  critics.*  Yet  Holtzmann  acknowledges  the  historical  truth  of 
some — of  those,  for  example,  which  introduce  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  lesson  upon 
avarice  (chap.  13).  We  have  ourselves  established  the  accuracy  of  a  very  large  num- 
ber, and  shown  that  they  contain  the  key  to  the  discourses  which  follow,  and  that 
commentators  'nave  often  erred  from  having  neglected  the  indications  which  they 
contain  (see  ou  13  :  23,  14  :  25,  15  : 1,  2,  16  : 1,  14,  17  :  20,  18  : 1,  19  :  11).  What  con- 
firms the  really  historical  character  of  those  notices  is,  that  there  is  a  certain  number 
of  doctrinal  teachings  which  want  them,  and  which  Luke  is  satisfied  to  set  down 
without  counectioa  and  without  introduction  after  one  another  :  bo  with  the  four 

*  Weizsacker  is  the  author  who  abuses  them  most :  "  No  value  can  be  allowed  to 
the  historical  introductions  of  Luke'  ("  Untersuch,"  p.  139).  It  is  true  that  he  is 
necessarily  led  to  this  estimate  bj- his  opinion  regarding  the  general  conformity  nf 
t!ie  great  discourses  of  Matthew  to  the  common  apo'^tolic  sources  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  the  Logia.  If  Matthew  is,  of  the  two  evangelists,  the  one  who  faithfully 
reproduces  this  original,  Luke  must  have  arbitrarily  dislocated  the  great  bodies  of 
discourse  found  in  Mattlrew  ;  and  in  this  case,  the  historical  introductions  must  be 
his  own  invention. 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  0^21 

precepts,  17  :  1-10.  Certainly,  if  be  had  allowed  Iiimsclf  to  invent  situations,  it 
would  not  have  bceu  more  difficult  to  imagine  them  for  those  sayings  than  for  so 
many  others. 

If  final]}',  we  compare  the  paralU'l  accounts  of  Luke  and  of  the  other  two  synop- 
tics, we  find,  both  in  the  des^ciiptitin  of  facts  and  in  the  tenor  of  the  sayings  of 
Jesus,  a  very  rcniaikable  superiority  on  the  part  of  Luke  in  respect  of  accuracy. 
We  refer  to  the  prayer  of  Jesus  at  the  lime  of  His  baptism,  and  before  Ilis  transligu- 
ration — the  human  factor,  as  it  is,  wliich  leads  to  the  divine  interposition,  and  takes 
from  it  that  abrupt  character  which  it  appears  to  have  in  the  other  accounts.  In  the 
temptation,  the  transposition  of  the  last  two  acts  of  the  struggle,  in  the  transfigura- 
tion, the  mention  of  the  subject  of  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  Moses  and  Elias, 
throw  great  light  on  those  scenes  taken  as  a  whole,  "which  in  the  other  synoptics  are 
much  less  clear  (see  the  passages). 

We  know  that  Luke  is  charged  with  grave  historical  errors.  According  to  M. 
Renan  ("  Vie  de  Jesus,"  p.  39  et  xeq.),  certain  declarations  are  "  pushed  to  extiemity 
and  rendered  false  ;"  for  example.  14  :  2G,  where  Luke  says  :  "  If  any  man  hate  not 
his  father  and  mother,"  where  Matthew  is  content  with  sajniig,  "  lie  that  loveth 
father  or  mother  ??io?'6'  than  me."  We  refer  to  our  exegesis  of  the  passage.  "He 
exaggerates  tlie  marvellous  ;"  for  example,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  in  Gelhsem- 
ane.  As  if  ^Matthew  and  Mark  did  not  relate  a  perfectly  similar  fact,  which  Luke 
omits,  at  the  close  of  the  account  of  the  temptation  !  "  He  commits  chronolo"-ical 
errors;"  for  example,  in  regard  to  Quirinius  and  Lysanias.  Luke  appears  to  us 
right,  so  far  as  Lysanias  is  concerned  ;  and  as  to  Quirinius,  considering  the  point  at 
which  researches  now  stand,  an  impartial  historian  will  hardly  take  the  liberty  of 
condemning  him  unconditionally.  According  to  Keim,  Luke  is  evidenllv  wron"-  in 
placing  the  visit  to  Nazareth  at  the  opening  of  the  Galilean  ndnistry  ;  but  has  he  not 
given  us  previously  the  descri[)tion  of  the  general  activity  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  (4  :  14 
and  1.5)?  And  is  not  the  saying  of  ver.  23,  which  supposes  a  stay  at  Capernaum  pre- 
vious to  this  visit,  to  be  thus  explained  ?  And,  further,  do  not  i\Ialt.  4  :  13  and  John 
2  :  12  contain  indisputable  proofs  of  a  return  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  Nazaicth  in  the 
very  earliest  times  of  His  Galilean  ministry  ?  Accoidiug  to  the  same  author,  Luke 
makes  Nain  in  Galilee  a  city  of  Judea  ;  but  this  interpretation  proceeds,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  an  entire  misunderstanding  of  the  context  (see  on  7  :  17).  It  is  alleged,  on 
the  ground  of  17  ;  11,  that  he  did  not-  know  the  relative  positions  of  Samaria  and 
Galilee.  We  arc  convinced  that  Luke  is  as  far  as  possible  from  being  guilty  of  so 
gross  a  mistake.  According  to  IM.  Snbatier  (p.  29),  there  is  a  contradiction  between 
the  departure  of  Jesus  by  way  of  Samaria  (9  :  o2)  and  His  arriving  in  Judea  by  Jericho 
(18  :  3.j)  ;  but  even  if  the  plan  of  Jesus  had  been  to  pass  through  Samaria,  the  refusal 
of  the  Samaritans  to  receive  Him  would  have  prevented  Him  from  carrying  it  out. 
And  had  He,  in  spite  of  this,  passed  through  Samaria,  He  might  still  have  arrived  by 
way  of  .Jericho  ;  for  from  the  earliest  times  there  has  been  a  route  from  north  to 
eouth  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Jordan.  Finally,  he  is  charged  with  certain  faults 
which  he  shaies  with  the  other  two  synoptics.  But  either  those  mistakes  have  no 
real  existence,  as  that  which  refers  to  the  day  of  Jesus'  death,  or  Luke  does  not  share 
them — e.fj.,  that  whi(;h  leads  Matthew  and  3Iark  to  place  John's  imprisonment  before 
the  first  return  of  Jesus  to  Galilee,  or  the  charge  of  inaccuracy  attaches  to  him  in  u 
less  degree  than  to  his  colleagues,  as  in  the  case  of  the  omission  of  the  journeys  of 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem. 


522  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

There  is  a  last  observation  to  be  made  on  the  historical  character  of  Luke's  nar- 
rative. It  occupies  an  intermediate  position  between  the  other  three  Gospels.  It 
has  a  point  in  common  with  Matthew — the  doctrinal  teachings  of  .lesus  ;  it  has  also  a 
point  of  contact  wilh  Mark — the  sequence  of  the  accounts,  which  is  the  same  over  a 
l.irge  portion  of  the  narrative  ;  it  has  likewise  several  features  in  common  wilh  John  : 
the  chief  is,  that  considerable  interval  whicli  in  both  of  them  divides  the  end  of  the 
Galilean  ministry  from  the  last  sojourn  at  Jerusalem.  Thereto  must  be  added  some 
special  details,  such  as  the  visit  to  Martha  and  Mary,  as  well  as  the  characteristics  of 
those  two  women,  which  harmonize  so  well  with  the  sketch  of  the  family  of  Belhany 
drawn  by  John  (chap.  11)  ;  next,  the  dispute  of  the  disciples  at  the  close  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  with  the  lessons  of  Jesus  therewith  connected — an  account  the  connection  of 
which  with  that  of  the  feet-washing  in  John  (chap.  13)  is  so  striking.  And  thus, 
while  remaining  entirely  independent  of  the  other  three,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  never- 
theless confirmed  and  supported  simultaneously  by  them  all. 

From  all  those  facts  established  by  exegesis,  it  follows  that,  if  Luke's  account  has 
not,  like  that  of  John,  the  fulness  and  precision  belonging  to  the  narrative  of  an  eye- 
witness, it  nevertheless  reaches  ihe  degree  of  fidelily  which  may  be  attained  by  a  his- 
torian who  draws  his  materials  from  those  sources  which  are  at  once  the  purest  and 
the  nearest  to  the  facts. 

0.  An  important  confirmatiun  of  the  accuracy  of  Luke's  account  arises  from  the 
continuity,  the  well-marked  liistorical  progression,  which  characterizes  it.  If  he  is 
behind  John  in  this  respect,  he  is  far  superior  to  Matthew  and  Mark.    • 

Though  the  author  did  not  tell  us  iu  his  prologue,  we  should  easily  discover  that 
his  purpose  is  to  depict  the  gradual  development  of  the  work  of  Chiistianity.  lie 
takes  his  starting  point  at  the -earliest  origin  of  this  work — the  announcement  of  the 
forerunner's  birth  ;  it  is  the  first  dawning  of  the  new  day  which  is  rising  on  hu- 
manity. Then  come  the  biifh  and  growth  of  the  forerunner—  the  birth  and  growth  of 
Jesus  Himself.  The  physical  and  moral  development  of  Jesus  is  doubly  sketched, 
before  and  after  His  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the  age  of  twelve  ;  a  scene  related 
only  by  Luke,  and  which  forms  the  link  of  connection  between  the  infancy  of  Jesus 
and  His  public  ministry.  With  the  baptism  begins  the  development  of  His  woik,  the 
continuatirin  of  that  of  His  person.  From  this  point  the  narrative  pursues  two  dis- 
tinct and  parallel  lines  :  on  one  side,  the  progress  of  the  new  work  ;  on  the  other,  its 
violeni  rupture  with  the  old  work,  Judaism.  The  progress  of  the  work  is  marked  by 
its  external  increase.  At  first,  Capernaum  is  its  centre  ;  thence  Jesus  goes  forth  iu 
all  directions  (4  :  48,  44)  :  Nain  to  the  west,  Gergesa  ti»  tlie  east,  B;thsaida- Julias  to 
the  north  ;  then  Capernaum  ceases  to  l)e  the  centre  of  His  excursions  (8  :  1-3),  and 
quitting  those  more  northern  countries  entirely.  He  proceeds  to  evangelize  southern 
Galilee  and  Perea,  upon  which  He  had  not  yet  entered  (9  :  51),  and  repairs  by  tiiis  way 
to  Jerusalem.  Side  by  side  with  this  external  progress  goes  the  moral  development 
of  the  work  itself.  Surro  mded  at  first  by  a  certain  number  of  5^'^«ezje/".<  (4  ;  38-42), 
Jesus  soon  calls  some  of  them  to  become  His  permanent  disciples  and  fellow- 
labjrers  (5  : 1-11,  27,  28).  A  considerable  time  after,  when  the  work  has  grown.  He 
chooses  twelve  from  the  midst  of  this  multitude  of  disciples,  making  tliem  His  more 
immediate  followers,  and  calling  them  apostles.  Such  is  the  foundation  of  the  new 
edifice.  The  time  at  length  comes  when  they  are  no  longer  sulficient  for  the  wauis 
of  the  work.  Then  seventy  new  evangelists  are  added  to  them.  The  death  of  Jesus 
suspends  for  some  time  the  progress  of  the  work  ;  but  after  His  resurrection   the 


COMMENTARY   ON   ST.    LUKE.  523 

apostolfttc  is  reconstituted  ;  and  soon  the  ascension,  by  placing  the  Muster  on  the 
throne,  ,i!;ivcs  Ilim  the  means  of  elevatinj?  Ilis  fellow-laborers  to  the  full  height  of 
that  mission  which  they  have  to  carry  out  in  His  name.  Is  not  the  concatenation  of 
the  narrative  faultless?  And  is  not  this  exposition  far  superior  as  a  histoiical  work 
t.)  the  systematic  juxtaposition  of  homoi^cueous  masses  in  Matthew,  or  to  the  series 
(  t  anecdotes  chaiacteristic  of  Mark  V  The  same  gradation  meets  us  in  another  line, 
that  of  the  facts  which  mark  lliC  rupture  between  the  new  woik  and  Israel  with  its 
<i!Hcial  representatives.  First  it  is  the  inhabitants  of  Kazaieth,  w  ho  refuse  to  lecognize 
!.s  the  Messiah  iheir  former  fellow-townsman  (chap.  4)  ;  afterward  it  is  the  .'^crihes 
who  have  come  from  Jeiusuiem,  who  dcn^^  Ilis  light  to  pardon  s^ins  accuse  Ilim  of 
bieaking  the  Sabbath  (chap.  ")  and  G),  and,  on  seeing  Ilis  nuiaclcsand  hearing  His 
answers,  become  almost  mad  with  lage  (G  :  11)  ;  it  is  Jesus  who  announces  His  near 
rejection  by  the  Sauhedrnn  (9  :  22),  and  the  death  which  awaits  Him  at  Jerusalem 
t,ver.  31)  ;  it  is  the  woe  pronounced  on  the  cities  of  Galilee  (chap.  10)  and  on  that 
whole  generation  which  shall  one  day  be  condemned  by  the  queen  of  the  south  and 
the  Nmevites  ;  then  we  have  the  divine  woe  uttered  at  a  feast  face  to  face  with  the 
Pharisees  and  scribes,  and  the  violent  scene  which  fellows  this  conflict  (chaps.  11  and 
12)  ;  the  express  announcement  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  of  the  desolation  of  the 
country,  especially  of  Jerusalem  (chap,  lo)  ;  the  judgment  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus 
breaking  the  last  link  between  Messiah  and  His  people  ;  the  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion emancipating  His  person  from  all  national  connections,  and  completely  .spiritual- 
izing His  kingdom.  Thus,  in  the  end,  the  work  begun  at  Belhlehem  is  traced  to  its 
cliibax,  both  in  its  internal  develoijment  and  its  external  emancipation. 

It  is  with  the  view  of  exhibiting  this  stcadj^  progress  of  the  divine  work  in  the  two 
respects  indicated,. that  the  author  marks  off  his  narrative  from  the  beginning  by  a 
series  of  general  remarks,  which  serve  as  resting-places  by  the  way,  and  which  de- 
scribe at  each  stage  the  present  position  of  the  work.  These  brief  representations, 
which  serve  both  as  summaries  and  points  of  outlook,  are  always  distinguished  by  the 
use  of  the  descriptive  tense  (the  imperfect)  ;  the  resuming  of  the  history  is  indicated 
by  the  reappearance  of  the  narrative  tense  (the  aoi'.).  The  following  are  the  chief 
passages  of  this  kiud  :  1  :  80.  2  :  40,  52.  3  :  18,  4  :  1^,  37,  44,  5  :  15,  IG,  8:1.9:  51, 
13  :  22,  17  :  11, 1'J  :  28,  47,  48,  21  :  37,  38,  24  :  53  (a  last  word,  which  closes  the  Gospel, 
and  prepares  for  the  narrative  of  the  Acts).  If  those  expressions  arc  more  and  more 
distant  in  proportion  as  the  narrative  advances  from  the  starting-point,  it  is  because 
the  further  the  journey  proceeds,  the  less  easy  is  it  to  measure  its  progress. 

What  completes  the  proof  that  this  characteristic  of  continuitj'isnot  accidental  in 
Luke's  narrative,  is  the  fact  that  exactly  the  same  feature  meets  us  in  the  book  of 
Acts.  Hero  Luke  describes  the  birth  and  growth  of  the  Church,  jirecisely  as  he  de- 
scribed in  his  Gospel  the  birth  and  growth  of  the  person  and  work  of  .lesus.  The 
narrative  takes  its  course  from  .Jerusalem  to  Antioch  and  from  Antioch  to  Rome,  as 
in  the  Gospel  it  proceeded  from  Bethlehem  to  Capernaum  and  from  Capernaum  to 
Jerusalem.  And  it  is  not  only  in  the  line  of  the  i)rogress  of  the  work  that  the  Acts 
continue  tlie  Go.spel  ;  it  is  also  along  that  of  the  breach  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
the  people  of  Israel.  The  rejection  of  the  apostolic  testimonj'  and  the  persecution  of 
the  Twelve  by  the  Sanhedrim  ;  the  rejection  of  Stephen's  preaching,  liis  martyrdom, 
and  the  dispersion  of  the  Church  which  results  from  it  ;  the  martj'rdom  of  .James 
(chap.  12)  ;  the  rmiform  repetition  of  the  contumacious  conduct  of  Israel  in  every 
city  of  the  world  where  Paul  is  careful  to  preach  lirst  in  the  synagogue  ;  the  machin- 


524  fOMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

ations  of  the  Jews  against  him  on  occasion  of  his  arrest  at  Jerusalem^  from  which  he 
escapes  only  by  the  impartial  interposition  of  the  Roman  authorities  ;  and  finally,  in 
the  closing  scene  (chap.  28),  the  decisive  rejection  of  the  Gospel  by  the  Jewish  com- 
munit}^  at  Rome,  the  heart  of  the  empire  :  such  are  the  steps  of  that  ever-growing 
separation  between  the  Church  and  the  synagogue,  of  which  this  last  scene  forms  as  it 
were  the  finishing  stroke. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  series  of  general  expressions  which  marks  off 
the  line  of  progress  in  the  Gospel  is  continued  in  the  Acts  ;  it  is  the  same  course 
which  is  followed  :  1  :  14,  2  :  42-47,  4  :  32-34,  5  :  12,  13,  42,  G  :  7,  8  :  4,  5,  9  :  31, 
12  :  24,  13  :  52,  19  :  20.  24  :  2G,  27,  28  :  30,  81  (the  last  word,  which  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  narrative).  The  periodical  recurrence  of  those  expressions  would  suflice  to 
prove  that  one  and  the  same  hand  composed  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  ;  for  this 
form  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  N.  T. 

By  all  those  features  we  recognize  the  superiority  of  Luke's  narrative  as  a  histor- 
ical work.  Matthew  groups  together  doctrinal  teachings  iu  the  form  of  great  dis- 
courses ;  he  is  a  preacher.  Mark  narrates  events  as  they  occur  to  his  mind  ;  he  is  a 
chronicler.  Luke  reproduces  the  external  and  internal  development  of  the  events  ; 
he  is  the  historian  ])roperly  so  called.  Let  it  be  remarked  that  the  three  character- 
istics which  we  have  observed  iu  his  narrative  correspond  exactly  to  the  three  main 
terms  of  his  programme  (1:3);  fulness,  to  the  word  iruntv  {nil  thingH)  ;  accuracy,  to 
the  word  aKpi!3€)i  {exactly)  ;  and  continuitj',  to  the  word  KnOe^i/i;  {in  order).  It  is  there- 
fore with  a  full  consciousness  of  his  method  that  Luke  thus  carried  out  his  work. 
He  traced  a  programme  for  himself,  and  followed  it  faithfully. 

II. — Beligious  Point  of  View. 

It  is  on  this  point  that  modern  criticism  has  raised  the  most  serious  discussions^ 
The  Tiibingen  school,  in  particular,  has  endeavored  to  prove  that  our  third  Gospel, 
instead  of  being  composed  purely  and  simply  in  the  service  of  historical  truth,  was 
written  in  the  interest  of  a  particular  tendency — that  of  the  Christianity  of  Paul, 
which  was  entirely  different  from  primitive  and  apostolic  Cliristianity. 

There  is  an  unmistakable  affinity  of  a  remarkable  kind  between  the  contents  of 
Luke  and  what  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  epistles  frequently  calls  Jiis  Oospel,  that  is  to 
say,  the  doctrine  of  the  universality  and  entire  freeness  of  the  salvation  offered  to  man 
without  any  legal  condition.  At  the  beginning  the  angels  celebrate  the  good-will  of 
God  to  (all)  men.  Simeon  foreshadows  the  breach  between  the  Messiah  and  the  ma- 
jority of  His  people.  Luke  alone  follows  out  the  quotation  of  Isaiah  relative  to  the 
ministry  of  John  tlie  Baptist,  including  the  words  :  "  And  all  flesh  shall  see  the  sal- 
vation of  God. "  He  traces  the  genealogy  back  to  Adam.  The  ministry  of  Jesus  opens 
with  Hi.T  visit  to  Nazareth,  which  forms  an  express  prelude  to  the  unbelief  of  Israel. 
The  paralytic  and  the  woman  who  w^as  a  sinner  obtain  pardon  hy  faith  alone.  The 
sending  of  the  seventy  evangelists  prefigures  the  evangelization  of  all  nations.  The 
part  played  by  the  Samaritan  in  the  parable  exhibits  the  superiority  of  that  people's 
moral  disposition  to  that  of  the  Israelites.  The  four  parables  of  the  lost  sheep  and 
the  lost  drachma,  the  prodigal  son,  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican,  are  the  doctrine 
of  Paul  exhibited  iu  action.  That  of  the  marriage  supper  (chap.  14)  adds  to  the  call- 
in??  of  sinners  in  Israel  (ver.  21)  that  of  the  Gentiles  (vers  22  and  23).  The  teaching 
regarding  the  unprofitable  servant  (17  :  7-10)  tears  up  the  righteousness  of  works  by 


(OMMKNTAKY    OX    ST.   LIKE.  ^t'lo 

the  roots.  The  grntitude  of  the  leprous  Siimaritan,  compared  with  the  iDgratilude  of 
the  nine  Jewisli  lepers,  again  exhibits  the  favorable  disposition  of  this  j)eople,  who 
arestningers  to  the  tlieocnicy.  Sal vuliou  abides  in  thohouseof  Zaccheus  tiie  pnblican 
from  the  nionieut  he  has  believed.  The  form  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper 
is  almost  identical  with  that  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  11.  The  sayings  of  Jesus  on  the  cross 
related  by  Luke — His  prayer  for  His  executioners.  His  pruniisc  to  the  thief,  and  His 
last  invocation  to  His  Father — are  all  three  words  of  grace  and  faith.  The  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Jesus  correspond  almost  point  for  point  to  the  enumeration  of 
Paul,  1  Cor.  15.  The  command  of  Jesus  to  the  apostles  to  "  preach  repentance  and 
the  remission  of  sins  to  all  r.aUons,"  is  as  it  were  the  programme  of  that  apostle's 
work  ;  and  the  scene  which  closes  the  Gospel,  that  of  Jesus  leaving  His  own  in  the 
act  of  blessing  them,  admirabl}-  represents  its  spirit. 

This  assemblage  of  characteristic  features  belonging  exclusivelj'  to  Luke  adnnts  of 
no  doubt  that  a  special  relation  existed  between  the  writing  of  this  evangelist  and  the 
ministry  of  St.  Paul  ;  and  that  granted,  we  can  hardly  help  finding  a  hint  of  this  rela- 
tion in  the  tiedicatinn  addressed  to  Theophilus,  no  doubt  a  Christian  moulded  by 
Paul's  teaching  :  "  That  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  things  vvhereiu 
thou  hast  been  instructed"  (see  p.  o'J). 

But  this  indisputable  fact  seems  to  be  opposed  by  another  not  less  evident— the 
presence  in  this  same  Gospel  of  a  large  number  of  elements  wholly  Jewish  in  their 
nature,  or  what  is  called  at  the  present  day  the  Ebionism  of  Luke. 

This  same  histoiian,  so  partial  to  Paul's  uuiversalism,  makes  the  new  work  begin 
in  the  sanctuary  of  the  ancient  covenant,  in  the  hoh'  place  of  the  temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem. The  persons  called  to  take  part  in  it  are  recommetided  to  this  divine  privilege  by 
their  irreproachable  fidelity  to  all  legal  observances  (1  :  6-15).  The  Messiah  who  is 
about  to  be  born  shall  ascend  the  throne  of  David  his  father  ;  His  kingdom  shall  be  the 
restored  house  of  Jacob  (vers.  33,  33)  ;  and  the  salvation  which  He  will  bring  to  His 
people  shall  have  for  its  culminating  point  Israel's  perfect  celebration  of  worship  freed 
from  their  enemies  (vers.  74,  75).  Jesus  H\mself  is  subject  from  the  outset  to  all  legal 
obligations  ;  He  is  circumcised  and  presented  in  the  temple  on  the  da^'s  and  with  all 
the  lites  prescribed,  and  His  parents  do  not  return  to  their  house,  it  is  expiessly  said, 
'•  till  they  had  performed  all  things  according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord."  At  the  age  in- 
dicated by  theocratic  custom.  He  is  brought  for  the  first  time  to  the  feast  of  Passover, 
where,  according  to  the  narrative,  "  His  parents  went  every  year."  As  the  condition 
of  participating  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  the  people  receive  from  the  mouth  of  John 
the  Baptist  merely  the  appointment  of  certain  woiksof  righteousness  and  beneficence 
to  be  practised.  If,  in  His  ministry.  Jesus  has  no  scruple  in  violating  the  additions 
with  which  the  doctors  had  surrounded  the  law  as  with  a  hedge- for  example,  in 
His  Sabbatic  miracles— He  nevertheless  remains  subject  to  the  ISIosaic  ordinance  even 
in  the  matter  of  the  Sabbath.  He  sends  the  healed  leper  to  offer  sacrifice  at  Jerusa- 
lem. OS  a  testimony  of  His  reverence  for  .Aloses.  Eternal  life  consists,  according  to 
Him,  in  fulfilling  the  sum  (10  :  2G-28)  or  the  commandments  of  the  law  (18  :  18-20). 
In  the  case  nf  ihe  woman  whom  He  cures  on  the  Sabbath  day,  He  loves  to  assert  her 
title  as  a  davfihter  of  Ahrnham  (13  :  10).  He  goes  the  length  even  of  affirming 
(16  :  17>  that  "  not  one  tittle  of  ihe  law%\i^\\  fail."  The  true  reason  of  that  perdition 
which  threatens  the  Pharisees,  represented  by  the  wicked  rich  man,  is  their  not 
liearing  ^^oses  and  the  prophets.  Even  at  the  very  close  of  Jesus'  ministry,  the  women 
•who  surround  him,  out  of  respect  for  the  Sabbath,  break  off  their  preparations   for 


520  COMMENTAEY    OiST    ST.   LUKE. 

embalminiif  Ilis  bodj'  ;  "  and,  it  is  expressly  said,  iJiey  rested  on  the  Sabbath  day  accord- 
ing to  the  commandment"  (23  :  56).  Finally,  it  is  Jerusalem  which  is  to  be  the  start- 
iug-point  of  the  new  preaching  ;  it  is  in  this  city  that  the  apostles  are  to  wait  for 
power  from  on  high.  It  is  in  the  temple  that  they  abide  continuilly,  after  the  ascen- 
sion. The  narrative  closes  in  the  temple,  as  it  was  in  the  temple  that  it  opened 
(34  :  53). 

If  Paul's  conception  is  really  antinomian,  hostile  to  Judaism  and  the  law,  and  if 
Luke  wrote  in  the  interest  of  this  view,  as  is  alleged  by  the  Tubingen  school,  how  are  we 
to  explain  this  second  series  of  facts  and  doctrines,which  is  assuredly  not  less  prominent 
in  our  Gospel  than  the  first  series  ?  Criticism  here  finds  itself  in  a  difficulty,  which  is 
botrayed  by  the  diversity  of  explanations  which  it  seeks  to  give  of  this  fact.  Volk- 
mar  cuts  the  Gordian  knot  ;  according  to  him,  those  Jewish  elements  have  no  exist- 
ence. The  third  Gospel  is  purely  Pauline.  That  is  easier  to  affirm  than  to  demonstrate  ; 
he  is  the  only  one  of  his  school  who  has  dared  to  maintain  this  assertion,  overthrown 
as  it  is  by  the  most^^bvious  facts.  Baur  acknowledges  the  facts,  and  explains  them 
by  admitting  a"iater  rehandling  of  our  Gospel.  The  first  composition,  the  primitive 
Luke,  being  exclusively  Pauline,  Ebionite  elements  were  introduced  later  by  the 
anonymous  author  of  our  canonical  Luke,  and  that  with  a  conciliatory  view.  But 
Zeller  has  perfectly  proved  to  his  master  that  this  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  Luke 
different  from  ours  is  incompatible  with  the  uuity  of  tendency  and  style  which  pre- 
vails in  our  Gospel,  and  which  extends  even  to  the  second  part  of  the  work,  the  book 
of  Acts.  The  Jewish  elements  are  not  veneered  on  the  narrative  ;  they  belong  to  the 
substance  of  the  history.  And  what  explanation  does  Zeller  himself  propose  ?  The 
author,  personally  a  decided  Paulinist,  was  convinced  that,  to  get  the  system  of  his 
master  admitted  by  the  Judeo-Christian  party,  they  must  not  be  offended.  He  there- 
fore thought  it  prudent  to  mix  up  in  his  treatise  pieces  of  both  classes,  some  Pauline, 
fitted  to  spread  his  own  view  ;  others  Judaic,  fitted  to  flatter  the  taste  of  readers  till 
now  opposed  to  Paul's  party.  From  this  Machiavelian  scheme  the  work  of  Luke 
proceeded,  with  its  two  radically  contradictory  currents.* 

But  before  having  recourse  to  an  explanation  so  improbable  both  morally  and  ra- 
tionally, as  we  shall  find  when  we  come  to  examine  it  more  closely  when  treating  of 
the  aim  of  our  Gospel,  is  it  not  fair  to  inquire  whether  there  is  not  a  more  natural  one 
contrasting  less  offensively  with  that  character  of  sincerity  and  simplicity  which 
strikes  every  reader  of  Luke's  narrative  ?  Was  not  the  Old  Covenant  with  its  legal 
forms  the  divinely-appointed  preparation  for  the  new  ?  Was  not  the  new  with  its 
pure  spirtuality  the  divinely-puq^osed  goal  of  the  old  ?  Had  not  Jeremiah  already 
declared  that  the  days  were  coming  when  God  Himself  would  abolish  the  covenant 
which  He  had  made  at  Sinai  with  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  and  when  He  would  sub- 
stitute a  New  Covenant,  the  essential  character  of  which  would  be,  that  the  law  should 
be  written  no  longer  on  tables  of  stone,  but  on  the  heart ;  no  longer  before  us,  but  in 
us  (31  :  31-34)'?  This  promise  clearly  established  the  fact  that  the  Messianic  era 
■would  be  at  once  the  abolition  of  the  law  in  the  letter,  and  its  eternal  fulfilment  in 

*  Overbeck,  another  savant  of  the  same  school,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Acts  (a 
re-edition  of  De  Wette's),  combats  in  his  turn  the  theory  of  Zeller,  and  finds  in  tiie 
work  of  Luke  the  product,  not  of  an  ecclesiastical  scheme,  but  of  Paulinism  in  its 
decadence  (see  chap.  2  of  this  Conclusion).  As  to  Keim,  he  has  recourse  to  the 
hypothesis  of  an  Ebionite  Gospel,  which  was  the  first  material  on  which  Luke,  the 
disciple  of  Paul,  wrought  (see  chap.  3).     We  see  :  Tot  capita,  tot  aenms. 


C^MMEKTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  527 

the  spirit.  And  such  is  precisely  tlic  animating  thought  of  the  Gospel  histor}',  as  it  has 
been  traced  by  Luke  ;  his  narrative  depicts  Iho  gradual  substitution  of  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  spirit  for  that  of  the  letter.  The  Mosaic  economy  is  the  starting-point  of 
his  history  ;  Jesus  Himself  begins  under  its  government ;  it  is  under  this  divine  shel- 
ter that  He  grows,  and  Ilis  work  matures.  Then  the  spirituality  of  the  Gospel  is 
formed  and  gradually  developed  in  Ilis  person  and  work,  and  getting  rid  by  degrees 
of  its  tcm[)orary  wrapping,  ends  by  shining  forth  in  all  its  brightness  in  the  preach- 
ing and  work  of  St.  Paul.  ]Mosaic  economy  and  spirituality  arc  not  therefore,  as 
criticism  would  have  it.  two  opposite  currents  which  run  parallel  or  dash  against  one 
another  in  Luke's  woik.  Between  Ebionism  and.Pauliuism  there  is  no  more  contra- 
diction than  between  the  blossom,  under  the  protection  of  which  the  fruit  forms,  and 
that  fruit  itself,  when  it  appears  released  from  its  rich  covering.  The  substitution  of 
fruit  for  llower  is  ihe  result  of  an  organic  transformation  ;  it  is  the  very  end  of  vege- 
tation. Only  the  blossom  docs  not  fade  away  in  g,  single  day,  an^'  more  than  the  fruit 
itse.f  ripens  m  a  single  d:iy.  Jesus  declares  in  Luke,  that  when  new  wine  is  offered 
to  one  accustomed  to  drink  old  wine,  he  turns  away  from  it  at  once  ;  for  he  says  : 
The  oldis better.  Agreeably  to  this  principle,  God  does  not  deal  abruptly  with  Israel  ; 
for  this  people,  accustomed  to  the  comparatively  easy  routine  of  ritualism,  He  pro- 
vided a  transition  period  intended  to  raise  it  gradually  from  legal  servility  td  the  per- 
ilous but  glorious  libeify  of  pure  spiritualliy.  This  period  is  that  of  the  development 
of  Jesus  Himself  and  of  His  work.  The  letter  of  the  law  was  scrupulously  respected, 
because  tlie  Spiiit  was  not  present  to  replace  it  ;  this  admirable  and  divine  work  is 
what  the  Gospel  of  Luke  invites  us  to  ccjntemplate  :  Jesus,  as  a  minister  of  the  cir- 
cumcmon  (Rom.  lo  :  8),  becoming  the  organ  of  the  Spirit.  And  even  after  Pentecost, 
the  Spirit  still  shows  all  needful  deference  to  the  letter  of  the  divine  law,  and  reaches 
its  emancipaliou  only  in  the  way  of  rendering  to  it  uniform  homage;  such  is  the 
scene  set  befoie  us  by  the  book  of  Acts  in  the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  and  especially 
in  that  of  St.  Paul.  To  explam  therefore  the  two  series  of  apparently  heterngeneous 
pieces  which  we  have  indicated,  we  need  neither  Volkmar's  audacious  denial  respect- 
ing the  existence  of  one  of  them,  nor  lhesul)lile  hypothesis  of  two  different  Paulinisms 
in  Luke,  the  one  more,  the  other  less  hostile  to  Judeo-Chrisliauity  (Baur),  nor  the 
supposition  of  a  shameless  deception  on  the  part  of  the  forger  who  composed  this 
writing  (Zeller).  It  is  as  little  necessary  to  ascribe  to  the  author,  with  Overbeck,  gross 
misunderstanding  of  the  true  system  of  his  master  Paul,  or  to  allege,  as  Keim  seems 
to  do,  that  he  clumsily  placed  in  juxtaposition,  and  without  being  aware  of  it,  two 
sorts  of  materials  drawn  from  sources  of  opposite  tendencies.  All  such  explanations 
of  a  system  driven  to  extremity  vanish  before  the  simple  fact  that  the  Ebionism  and 
Paulinism  of  Luke  belong  both  alike,  as  legitimate,  necessary,  successive  elements, 
to  the  real  history  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles — the  one  as  the  inevitable  point  of  de- 
parture, the  other  as  the  intended  goal  ;  and  that  the  period  which  separated  the 
one  fiom  the  other  served  only  to  replace  the  one  gradually  by  the  other.  By  giv- 
ing tho.se  two  principles  place  with  equal  fulness  in  his  narrative,  Luke,  far  from 
guiding  two  contradictory  tendencies  immorally  or  unskilfullj',  has  kept  by  the  pure 
objectivity  of  history.  Nothing  proves  this  better  than  that  very  appearance  of  con- 
tradiction which  he  could  brave,  and  which  gives  modern  criticism  so  much  to  do. 

Let  it  be  remarked  that  the  truth  of  the  so-called  Pauline  elements  in  Luke's  Gos- 
pel is  fully  borne  out  by  the  presence  of  similar  elements  in  the  other  two  synoptics. 
Ritschl,  in  his  beautiful  work  on  the  beginnings  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  shows 


5;2S  COMMKXTAKV    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

how  the  one  saying  of  Jesus,  preserved  in  Mark  and  Matthew  as  well  as  in  Luke  : 
"  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath,"  already  implied  the  future  abolition 
of  the  whole  Mosaic  law.  The  same  is  evidently  true  of  the  followiug  (Malt.  15  and 
Mark  7) :  "  Not  that  which  goeth  into  the  mouth  defileth  a  man  ;  but  that  which  comelh 
out  of  the  mouth,  this  defileth  him."  The  whole  Levitical  law  fell  before  this  maxim 
logically  carried  out.  We  may  also  cite  the  saying.  Matt.  8  :  11  :  "  1  say  unto  you,  that 
many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west ;  ...  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom 
shall  be  cast  out,"  though  it  is  arbitrarily  alleged  that  it  was  added  later  to  the  apos- 
tolic Matthew  ;  then  that  which  announces  the  substitution  of  the  Gentiles  for  Israel, 
in  the  parable  of  the  husbandmen:  "The  kingdom  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and 
given  to  u  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof"  (21  :  43),  a  saymg  which  Matthew 
alone  has  preserved  to  us  ;  finally,  the  command  given  to  the  apostles  to  go  and  bap- 
tize all  nations  (28  :  19),  which  necessarily  belonged  to  the  original  Matthew  :  for,  1. 
The  appearance  with  which  it  is  connected  is  announced  long  before  (Matt.  26  :  32)  ; 
2.  Because  it  is  the  only  one  related  in  this  Gospel,  and  therefore  could  not  be  want- 
ing in  the  original  record  ;  3.  Because  Jesus  certainly  did  not  appear  to  His  disciples 
to  say  nothing  to  them.  But  the  most  decisive  saying  related  by  our  three  synoptics 
is  the  parable  of  the  old  garment  and  the  piece  of  new  cloth  (see  on  this  passage, 
5  :  36)  Paul  has  affirmed  nothing  more  trenchant  respecting  the  opposition  between 
the  law  and  the  gospel. 

The  fundamental  principles  of  Paulinism,  the  abolition  of  the  law,  the  rejection 
of  Israel  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  are  not  therefore  any  importation  of  Paul  or 
Luke  into  the  gospel  of  .Jesus.  They  belonged  to  the  Master's  teaching,  though  the 
time  had  not  yet  come  for  develDpiug  all  their  consequences  practically. 

This  general  question  resolved,  let  us  examine  in  detail  the  points  which  criticism 
still  attempts  to  make  good  in  regard  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  It  is  alleged 
that,  under  the  influence  of  Paul's  doctrine,  Luke  reaches  a  conception  of  the  person 
of  Christ  which  transcends  that  of  the  other  two  synoptics.  "  He  softens  the  passages 
which  had  become  embarrassing  from  the  standpoint  of  a  more  exalted  idea  of  the 
divinity  of  Jesus"  (Kenan)  ;  for  example,  he  omits  Matt.  24  :  36,  which  ascribes  tlie 
privilege  of  omniscience  to  the  Father  only.  But  did  he  do  so  intentionally  ?  Was 
he  acquainted  with  this  saying  ?  We  have  just  seen  another  omission  which  he  makes 
(p.  488) ;  we  shall  meet  with  many  more  still,  in  which  the  proof  of  an  opposite  ten- 
dency might  be  quite  as  legitimately  alleged.  Is  it  not  Luke  who  makes  the  centurion 
say,  "  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man,''  while  the  other  two  represent  him  as  say- 
ing, "  This  was  the  Son  of  God  ?"  What  a  feeble  basis  for  the  edifice  of  criticism  do 
such  differences  present ! 

The  great  journey  across  the  countries  situated  between  Galilee  and  Samaria  was 
invented,  according  to  Baur,  with  the  view  of  bringing  into  relief  the  non-Israelitish 
country  of  Samaria.  Luke  thus  sought  to  justify  Paul's  work  among  the  Gentiles. 
But  would  Luke  labor  at  the  same  moment  to  overthrow  what  he  is  building  up,  by 
inventing  the  refusal  of  the  Samaritans  to  receive  .Jesus  ?  Besides,  it  is  wholly  untrue 
that  Samaria  is  the  scene  of  the  journey  related  in  this  part.  Was  it  then  in  Samaria 
that  .Jesus  conversed  with  a  doctor  of  the  law  (10  :  25),  that  He  dined  with  a  Pharisee, 
that  He  came  into  conflict  with  a  company  of  scribes  (11  :  37-53),  that  He  cured  in 
the  synagogue  a  daughter  of  Abraham  (13  :  16),  etc.  etc.  ?  There  is  found,  no  doubt, 
among  the  ten  lepers  one  who  is  of  Samaritan  origin  (17  :  16)  ;  but  if  this  circum- 
stance can  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  scene  passes  in  Samaria,  the  presence  of  nine 


COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   lA  KE.  5;i9 

Jewish  lepers  should  make  it  appear  nine  times  more  probable  that  it  transpires  on 
Isiaelilislj  territory. 

In  the  instructions  given  to  the  Twelve,  Luke  omits  tlie  saying,  "  Go  not  into  the 
way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not."  Neither  do 
we  find  the  answer  addressed  to  the  Canaanitish  woman,  "  1  am  not  sunt  but  unto  the 
Jost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  But,  as  to  tlie  first,  JMark  omits  it  as  well  as  Luke. 
Could  this  also  arise  tiom  a  dogmatic  tendency?  But  how,  in  that  case,  should  he 
relate  the  second  as  well  as  Matthew?  The  first  then  was  simply  Wiintiug  in  his 
pouice  ;  why  not  also  in  Luke's,  which  in  this  very  narrative  seems  to  have  had  the 
greatest  couformily  to  that  of  Mark  ?  As  to  the  second  saying,  it  belongs  not  only 
lo  a  narrative,  but  to  a  whole  cycle  of  narratives  which  is  completely  wanting  in 
Luke  (two  whole  chapters).  Besides,  does  not  Luke  also  omit  the  peculiarlv  Pau- 
Ime  saying,  "  Come  unto  nic,  all  ye  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  ye  shall  find 
rest  unto  your  souls  ?"  Could  this  also  be  a  dogmatical  omission?  And  as  to  the 
saying,  "  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  pieached  over  all  the  earth,"  in  con- 
nection with  which  floltznumn  himself  asks  the  Tubingen  critics  whether  Luke 
passes  it  over  in  silence  in  a  Pauline  interest  !  Those  declarations  were  simply  want- 
jug  in  his  documents.  Why  not  also  those  particularistic  sayings  ?  Tliey  would  cer- 
tainly not  have  caused  Luke  more  embarrassment  than  they  did  to  ]\Ialthew,  who 
sees  in  them  no  contradiction  to  the  command  which  closes  his  Gospel,  "  Go  and 
baptize  all  nations."  It  is  evident  that  the  prohibition  addressed  to  the  di.«ciples 
(Matt.  10)  was  only  temporary,  and  applied  only  to  the  time  during  which  Jesus  as  a 
rule  leslricted  Ilis  spheie  of  action  to  Israel  ;  from  the  time  that  Ilis  death  and  res- 
urrection released  Him  from  Ilis  national  surroundings,  all  was  changed. 

Luke  has  a  grudge  at  the  Twelve  ;  he  seeks  to  depreciate  them  :  such  is  the  thesis 
which  Baur  has  maintained,  and  which  has  made  way  in  France.  lie  proves  it  by 
8  •  53,  54,  where  he  contrives  lo  make  Luke  say  that  the  disciples  laughed  our  Lord 
to  scorn,  and  that  He  drove  them  from  the  apartment  ;  and  yet  the  words,  "  know- 
ing that  she  was  dead."  clearly  prove  that  the  persons  here  spoken  of  were  those  who 
had  witnessed  the  death  of  the  young  girl  ;  and  ver.  51  excludes  the  view  that  lie 
put  the  disciples  out,  for  He  had  just  brought  them  within  the  house  (see  the  exe- 
gesis). He  proves  it  further  by  9  :  83,  where  Luke  says  that  Peter  and  the  other  two 
disciples  were  heavj-  with  sleep  ;  as  if  this  remark  were  not  intended  to  take  off  from 
the  strangeness  of  Peter's  saying  which  follows,  and  which  is  mentioned  by  the  three 
evangelists.  But  the  chief  proof  discovered  by  Baur  of  this  hostile  intention  to  the 
Twelve  is  his  account  of  the  sending  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  the  way  in  which 
Luke  applies  to  this  mission  a  considerable  part  of  the  instru(;tions  given  to  the 
Twelve  in  Matt.  10.  But  if  the  sending  of  the  seventy  disciples  were  an  invention  of 
Luke,  after  thus  bringing  them  on  the  scene,  he  would  make  them  play  a  part  in  the 
sequel  of  the  Gospel  history,  and  especially  in  the  first  Christian  missions  related  in 
the  Acts,  while  from  that  moment  he  says  not  a  word  more  about  them  ;  the  Twelve 
reniiiin  after,  as  well  as  before  that  mission,  the  only  important  persons  ;  it  is  to 
them  that  Jesus  gives  the  command  to  ])reach  to  the  Gentiles  (24  :  45  ct  seq.) ;  it  is 
from  them  that  everything  proceeds  in  the  book  of  Acts  ;  and  when  Philip  and 
Stephen  come  on  the  scene.  Luke  does  not  designate  them,  as  it  would  have  been  so 
ea.sy  for  him  to  do,  as  having  belonged  to  the  nundier  of  the  seventy.  Keim  him- 
self acknowledges  (p.  70)  "  that  it  is  im[)ossibIe  to  ascribe  the  inventiun  of  this  his- 
tory to  Luke  ;"  and  in  proof  of  this  he  alleges  the  truly  Jewish  spirit  of  the  saying 


530  COMMENTAIIY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

with  which  Jesus  receives  the  seventy  on  their  return.  So  little  was  it  suspected  in 
the  earliest  times,  even  within  the  bosom  of  Judeo-Christian  communities,  that  this 
narrative  could  be  a  Pauline  invention,  that  it  is  frequently  quoted  in  the  "  Clemen- 
tine Homilies."  If,  in  narrating  the  sending  of  the  Twelve,  Luke  did  not  quote  all 
the  instructions  given  by  Matthew  (chap.  10),  the  same  omission  takes  place  in  Mark, 
who  cannot,  however,  be  suspected  of  an^^  anti-apostolic  tendency  ;  this  harmony 
proves  that  the  omission  is  due  to  the  sources  of  the  two  writers. 

If  Luke  had  the  intention  of  depreciating  the  Twelve,  would  he  alone  describe  the 
solemn  act  of  their  election  ?  Would  he  place  it  at  the  close  of  a  whole  night  of 
prayer  (chap.  6)  ?  Would  he  mention  the  glorious  promise  of  Jesus  to  make  the 
apostles  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  ?  Yv'ould  ho  omit  the  assent 
which  they  all  give  in  Matthew  and  Mark  to  the  presumptuous  declaration  of  Peter  : 
lam  ready  to  (jotcith  Thee  even  unto  death!  Would  he  make  no  mention  of  their 
shameful  flight  at  Gelhsemane,  which  is  related  by  the  other  two?  Would  he  ex- 
cuse their  sleeping  on  that  last  evening  by  saying  that  the}*  were  sleeping /o/'so/tow  / 
and  tlieir  unbelief  on  the  day  of  resurrection,  by  saying  that  it  vcasforjoy  they  could 
not  believe  (those  details  are  peculiar  to  Luke)  ?  Luke  does  not  speak  of  the  ambi- 
tious request  of  Zebedee's  two  sons,  and  of  the  altercation  wliich  ensued  with  the 
other  disciples  ;  he  applies  to  the  relation  between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  severe 
warning,  the  first  part  of  which  is  addressed  in  Matthew  to  the  Twelve  :  "  and  there 
are  first  which  shall  be  last,"  and  the  second  part  of  which  :  "and  tiiere  are  last 
which  shall  be  fiist,"  might  so  easily  have  been  turned  to  the  honor  of  Paul.  If  there 
is  one  of  the  synoptics  who  holds  up  to  view  the  misunderstandings  and  moral  de- 
fects of  the  apostles,  and  the  frequent  displeasure  of  Jesus  with  them,  it  is  Mark,  and 
not  Luke. 

In  respect  to  Peter,  who  it  is  alleged  is  peculiarly  the  object  of  Luke's  antipathy, 
this  evangelist  certainly  omits  the  saying  so  honoring  to  this  apostle:  "Thou  art 
Peter,"  etc.,  as  well  as  the  narrative,  Matt.  14  :  28-ol,  in  which  Peter  is  privileged  to 
walk  on  the  waters  by  the  side  of  our  Loid.  But  he  also  omits  in  the  former  case 
that  terrible  rebuke  which  immediately  follows  :  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  ;  thou 
art  an  offence  unto  me."  And  what  is  the  entire  omission  of  this  whole  scene,  com- 
pared with  the  conduct  of  Mark,  who  omits  the  first  part  favorable  to  Peter,  and  re- 
lates in  detail  the  second,  where  he  is  so  sternly  nprimauded  !  If  it  was  honoring  to 
Peter  to  walk  on  the  waters,  it  was  not  very  much  so  to  sink  the  next  moment,  and 
to  bring  down  oh  himself  the  apostrophe  ;  "  O  thou  of  little  faith  !"  The  onission 
of  this  incident  has  therefore  nothing  suspicious  about  it.  Is  not  the  history  of  Peter's 
call  related  in  Luke  (chap,  o)  in  a  way  still  more  glorious  for  hioi  than  in  Matthew 
and  Maik?  Is  he  not  presented,  from  beginning  to  end  of  this  narrative,  as  the  prin- 
cipal person,  in  a  sense  the  only  one  (vers.  4,  10)  ?  Is  it  not  he  again  who,  in  the  first 
days  of  Jesus'  ministry  at  Capernaum,  plays  the  essential  part  (Luke  4  :  o8-44  ?) 
On  the  eve  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  is  it  not  he  who  is  honored,  along  with  John,  with 
the  mission  of  making  ready  the  Passover,  and  that  in  Luke  only  ?  Is  not  his  denial 
related  in  Luke  with  much  more  reserve  than  in  Matthew,  where  the  imprecations  of 
Peter  upon  himself  are  expressly  mentioned?  Is  it  not  in  Luke  that  Jesus  dechrres 
that  He  has  devoted  to  Peter  a  special  prayer,  and  expects  from  him  the  sticngthening 
of  all  the  other  disciples  (23  :  33)  ?  Is  he  not  the  first  of  the  apostles  to  whom,  accord- 
ing to  Luke  (83  :  34)  as  according  to  Paul  (1  Cor.  15),  the  risen  Jesus  appears  ?  And 
despite  all  this,  men  dare  to  represent  the  third  Gospel  as  a  satire  directed  against  tlie 


COMMENTAIIY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  531 

Twtlvo,  niul  against  Peter  in  piirliriilar  (llic  ainnynious  Saxon)  ;*  and  M.  Burnouf 
ventures  to  eliaraetcrizc  it  thus  in  the  licnie  dcs  Deux  Mondcs  (December,  ISGo)  ; 
"Luke  seeks  to  attenuate  tlic  jiulhorily  of  the  Twelve  .  .  .  ;  lio  depreeialis 
Peter  ;  he  takes  from  tlie  Twelve  the  merit  of  having  founded  the  religion  of  Chrisi, 
hy  adding  to  them  seventy  envoys  whose  mission  is  contrary  to  the  most  authoritative 
Israeiilish  usages."  ]\I.  Burnouf  forgets  to  tell  us  what  those  usages  are,  and  whetlur 
Je¥us  held  Himself  always  strictly  bound  to  Jewish  usages.  On  the  other  hand, 
Z-lier.  the  pronounced  tlisciple  of  Baur,  finds  himself  obliged  to  make  this  coufis- 
siou  ("  Aposlelgesch."  p.  450)  :  "  "We  cannot  .suppose  in  the  case  of  Luke  any  real 
hostility  to  the  Tweh'e,  because  he  mentions  circumntances  omitted  by  ]\IatllRW 
himself  which  exalt  them,  and  because  he  omits  others  which  are  to  their  discredit." 

Once  more,  in  what  is  called  the  Jewish  tendency  of  Luke,  there  is  a  point  which 
has  engaged  the  attention  of  criticism  :  we  mean  the  partiality  expressed  by  this  Gos- 
pel for  the  poorer  classes,  its  Ehionism  (stiictly  «o  called)  !  f  "  Luke's  heres}',"  as 
De  Wette  has  it.  It  appears  1  :  5i],  6  :  20,  21,  where  the  poor  appiar  to  be  saved, 
the  rich  condemned,  as  mch  ;  13  :  33,  34  ;  IG  :  9,  23-25  ;  18  :  22-25,  where  salvation 
is  connected  with  almsgiving  and  the  sacrifice  of  earthly  goods,  damnation  with  the 
keeping  of  them.  But,  1.  We  have  seen  that  there  is  a  temporary  side  in  these  pre- 
cepts ;  see  especially  on  12  :  33,  34  ;  18  :  22-25.  Does  not  Paul  also  (1  Cor.  7)  rec- 
ommend to  Christians  not  to  jtossess,  but  "  io possess  as  though  they  possessed  not  ?" 
2.  Poverty  and  riches  by  no  moans  produce  those  effects  inevitably  and  without 
the  concurrence  of  the  will.  Poverty  dees  not  save  ;  it  prepares  for  salvation  by  pro- 
ducing lowliness  :  wealth  does  not  condenm  ;  it  may  lead  to  damnation,  b}'^  harden- 
ing the  heart  iind  producing  forgetfulness  of  God  and  His  law  :  such  is  the  meaning 
of  G  :  21-25  when  lightly  understood  :  of  IG  :  29-31  ;  of  18  :  27  (the  salvation  of  the 
rich  impossible  with  men,  hui  possible  with,  God)  ;  finally,  of  Ads  5  :  4,  where  the  right 
of  property  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  is  expressly  reserved  by  Peter,  and 
their  punishment  founded  solely  on  their  falsehood.  3.  The  alleged  "  heresy  of 
Luke"  is  also  that  of  Matthew  and  INlark  (narrative  of  the  rich  young  man),  and  con- 
seijuently  of  our  Lord  Himself.  Let  us  rather  recognize  that  he  giving  up  of  prop- 
erty appears  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  either  as  a  measure  arising  from  the  necessity 
imposed  on  His  disciples  of  accnrnpanyiug  Him  outwardly,  or  as  a  voluntary  and 
optional  offeiiiig  of  charity,  applical)le  to  all  times. 

If  noAv,  setting  aside  critical  discussion,  we  .seek  positively  to  characterize  the  re- 
ligious complexion  of  Luke's  narrative,  the  fundamental  tone  appears  to  us  to  be,  as 
Langc  says  ("  Leben  Jesu,"  i.  p.  258  et  seq.)  :  "  the  revelation  cf  divine  mercy,"  or, 
belter  still,  according  to  Paul's  literal  expression  (Tit.  3:4):  the  manifestation  of 
divhie  pJiilanthropij. 

To  this  characteristic  there  is  a  second  corresponding  one  :  Luke  loves  to  exhibit 
in  the  human  soul,  in  the  very  mid.=t  of  its  fallen  state,  the  presence  of  some  ray  of 
the  divine  image.  He  speaks  of  that  honcKt  and  good  lieurt,  which  receives  the  seed 
of  the  gospel  as  soon  as  it  is  .scattered  on  it  ;  he  points  to  the  good  Samaritan  per- 
forming instinctively  tlie  iJiinrjs  contained  in  the  laio  (Rom.  2  :  14)  ;  in  the  case  ef 

*  Zeller  himself  says  ("  Aposlelgesch."  p.  43G) :  "  In  reality,  there  are  not  to  be 
foimd  in  this  Gf.spel  any  ol'  the  indirect  attacks,  insults,  malevolent  insinuations,  and 
earca.snis  against  Jud»'0-Christianily  and  the  Judeo-Christian  apostles  which  the  anony- 
mous Saxon  seeks  in  it." 

+  It  is  well  known  that  this  term  arises  frrm  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  ;»<?)■. 


633  COMMEiifTARY    OJs"    ST.   LUKE. 

Zacclieus  he  indicates  the  manifestation  of  natural  probity  and  beneficence,  as  he  will 
do  in  the  book  of  Acts,  in  respect  to  Cornelius  and  several  others,  especially  some  of 
the  Roman  magistrates  with  whom  Panl  has  to  do.  Therein  we  recognize  the  Greek 
ideal  of  the  ««/.<)?  KayaOoi. 

With  the  first  of  those  two  characteristics  there  is  undoubtedly  connected  tbat 
universalism  of  grace  so  often  pointed  out  in  Luke  ;  with  the  second,  perhaps,  the 
essential  character  which  he  unfolds  in  the  person  of  Christ  :  humanity  working  out 
in  Him  its  pure  and  normal  development  ;  the  child,  the  young  man  growing  in 
grace  and  wisdom  as  Ho  grows  in  stature  ;  the  man  comes  out  in  His  emotion  at  the 
sight  of  a  mother  bereaved  of  her  son,  of  His  native  country  on  the  eve  of  ruin,  of 
His  executioners  who  are  striking  themselves  while  they  strike  Him,  of  a  thief  who 
humbles  himself.  We  understand  the  whole  :  it  is  the  Son  of  man,  born  an  infant, 
but  through  all  the  stages  of  life  and  death  becoming  the  High  Priest  of  His  brethren, 
whom  He  leaves  in  the  act  of  blessing  them.  So  that  this  history  is  summed  up  in 
two  features  :  divine  compassion  stooping  down  to  man  ;  human  aspirations  entering 
into  perfect  union  with  God  in  the  person  of  Him  who  is  to  bring  back  all  others  to 
God. 

With  such  a  history  before  us,  what  narrow  unworthy  particularistic  tendency 
could  possibly  exist  in  the  writer  who  understood  and  worked  upon  it  ?  Such  an  ob- 
ject imposes  objectivity  on  the  historian.* 

HI. — Literary  Point  of  View. 

A.  The  first  feature  which  distinguishes  Luke's  work  in  this  respect  is  the  pres- 
ence of  a  2^1'ologue,  written  in  a  Greek  s-tyle  of  peifect  purity,  and  in  which  the  author 
gives  account  of  the  origin  of  his  book.  We  have  already  shown  (p.  3o)  what 
is  the  necessary  inference  from  this  fact,  which  has  no  analogy  either  in  Matthew  or 
Mark,  or  even  in  John,  and  which  would  suffice  to  demonstrate  the  Hellenic  origin 
of  the  author,  and  the  high  degree  of  classical  culture  which  prevailed  in  the  circle, 
with  a  view  to  which  he  wrote. 

B.  The  chief  question  which  has  been  raised  in  regard  to  the  literary  character  of 
Luke's  composition  is  whether  it  belongs  to  the  class  of  collectanea,  simple  compila- 
tions, or  whether  in  all  its  details  it  observes  a  consecutive  j9?a?i.  It  is  well  known 
that  Schleiermacher  took  the  first  view.  Our  Gospel  is  in  his  eyes  an  aggregate  of 
pieces  separately  composed  and  put  together  by  a  Inter  compiler.  In  Ewald's  opin- 
ion also  the  author  is  only  a  collector.  Holtzmann  himself  (article  on  the  Acts,  in  the 
*'  Bible  Dictionary"  published  by  Bchenkel)  calls  our  Gospel  "  a  compilation  without 
any  well-defined  plan  ;"  he  extends  the  same  judgment  to  the  Acts.  This  opinion  is 
combated  by  several  critics.  Ililgenfeld  speaks  of  "  the  artistic  unity"  of  Luke's 
iiarrative.     Zeller  acknowledges  "  that  a  ligorous  plan  prevails  throughout  the  entire 

*  This  conclusion  is  admitted  by  two  of  the  most  distinguished  representatives  cf 
modern  criticism.  Holtzmann  (p.  401):  "Just  as  the  most  ancient  demonstrable 
Gospel  document,  the  "  Logia,"  was  written  without  the  least  regard  to  any  dog- 
matic interest  ...  so  llie  thud  Gospel,  the  most  extensive  work  of  the  syuop 
tic  literatuie,  betrays  the  tendency  of  its  author  only  in  its  arrangement  and  choice 
of  materials,  and  iri  slight  modifications  which  bear  only  on  the  foim  of  delineation 
Reuss.  (sec.  209)  :  "  W'e  shall  be  nearer  the  truth  if  we  assert  that  it  was  in  no  party 
interest,  but  by  means  of  a  disinterested  historical  investigation,  that  the  materials 
of  this  narrative  were  collected." 


COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE.  533 

work"  (Go?pcl  and  Acts).  M.  Renan  sees  in  it  "a  work  written  throughout  hy  the 
same  haud,  and  with  the  most  perfect  unitj-. "  We  adlierc  fully  to  this  second  view. 
TV'c  have  already  pointed  out  that  one  single  idea  inspires  the  whole  narrative,  and 
has  determined  the  choice  of  its  materials,  namely,  that  of  the  development  of  the 
Christian  work  (1  :  1),  from  the  twofold  standpoint  of  its  organic  growth  and  of  ils 
breach  with  the  Israelitish  people.  Once  in  possession  of  this  idea,  we  easily  com- 
prehend the  course  of  the  narrative.  The  first  two  chapters  of  the  Gospil  are  an  in- 
troduction, in  which  Luke  gives  the  preparation  for  the  new  work  in  that  pure  Being 
placed  bj'  God  in  the  bosom  of  humanity.  The  work  itself  begins  with  tliebai)lism  of 
Jesus  in  chap.  3.  It  comprises  three  i)arts  :  1.  The  Galilean  ministry  ;  Jesus  draws  to 
Ilim  the  elements  of  Ilis  future  Cluirch,  and  lays  down  in  the  aposlolate  the  principle 
of  its  organization.  3.  The  journey  from  Galilee  to  Judea  ;  thisisa  transition  period  : 
the  work  extends  outwardly  while  it  is  strengthened  spiritually  ;  but  the  hostility  of 
the  official  represeiUatives  of  the  nation,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  lighted  up  already 
in  the  previous  period,  goes  on  increasing.  3.  The  sojourn  at  Jerusiilem  :  the  cross 
violently  breaks  the  last  link  between  Israel  and  its  King.  But  the  lesurrection  and 
ascension,  freeing  Jesus  from  every  national  relation,  and  raising  Him  to  a  free  and 
glorious  existence,  suited  to  the  nacnre  of  the  Son  of  God  (Rom.  1  :  3,  4),  make  Ilim 
in  the  words  of  Peter,  the  Lord  of  all  (Acts  10  :  80).  The  Israelitish  Messiah  by  birth. 
He  becomes  by  His  death  and  ascension  the  King  of  the  universe.  From  that  time  forth 
Ilis  people  is  the  human  race.  The  ascension,  which  forms  the  climax  of  the  Gospel 
history,  is  at  the  same  time  the  starting-point  for  the  history  of  the  Acta.  "  On  the 
one  side  we  ascend  to  this  summit :  on  the  other  we  descend  from  it."*  Hence  the 
double  narration  of  (he  fact.  It  belongs,  indeed,  to  both  writings — to  the  one  as  its 
crown,  to  the  other  as  its  basis.  This  repetition  does  not  arise,  as  a  sn[)erficial  criti- 
cism supposes,  from  the  juxtaposition  of  two  different  traditions  regarding  that  event.f 
"What  sensible  wiiter  would  adopt  such  a  course  ?  The  ascension  is  the  bond  which 
joins  together  the  two  aspects  of  the  divine  work — that  in  which  Jesus  rises  from 
the  manger  to  the  throne,  and  that  in  which,  from  the  throne  on  high,  He  acts  upon 
humanity,  creating,  preserving,  and  extending  the  Church.  It  forms  part  of  tlie 
hi.stor}'  of  Jesus  and  of  that  of  the  Church. 

Between  the  work  which  is  wrought  in  Jesus  and  that  wrought  in  the  Church, 
and  which  is  described  in  Acts,  there  is  a  correspondence  which  is  exhibited  by  the 
parallelism  of  plan  in  the  two  books.  After  an  introduction  which  (Iciciibes  the  com- 
munity of  believers  as  already  formed,  though  yet  unknown  (Acis  1.  comp.with  Luke 
1  and  2),  Pentecost  introduces  it  on  the  theatre  of  history,  as  His  baptism  called  Jesus 
to  His  pid)lic  activity.  1.  Here  begins,  chap.  2,  tiie  first  part  of  the  narrative,  which 
extends  to  the  end  of  chup.")  ;  it  relates,  first,  the  founding  of  the  church  of  .Jerusalem, 
the  mother  and  model  of  all  others  ;  then  the  ob.stinate  resistance  which  the  preaching 
ot  the  apostles  met  with  from  the  Jewish  authorities  and  the  mass  of  the  nation.  2. 
The  second  part,  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  in  many  respects,  delineates,  like  the 
second  part  of  the  Gospel,  a  transition  period.  It  extends  to  the  end  of  chap.  12. 
The  author  has  collected  and  enumerated  in  this  piece  the  whole  series  of  providential 

*  M.  F6lix  Bovet. 

f  Any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  double  narrative  of  the  creation  of  man  in  Gen- 
esis (chaps.  1  and  2).  Man  is  d-^scriljcd,  chap.  1.  as  the  goal  of  the  development  of  na- 
ture ;  chap.  2,  as  the  basis  of  the  development  of  history.  Nature  rises  to  liim  :  his- 
tory goes  forth  from  him. 


534  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

events  by  which  the  way  was  paved  for  transferring  the  kiagdom  of  God  from  the 
Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  the  subject  of  the  third  part.  First,  there  is  the  ministry  of 
Sleplien,  who  dies  for  having  said  "  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  the  temple, 
and  shall  change  the  customs  which  Moses  delivered"  [Q  :  14).  There  is  the  ministry 
of  Pliilip  (chap.  8),  who  makes  the  lirst  breach  on  the  Gentile  world  by  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Samaritans,  in  which  Peter  and  John  themselves  come  to  take  part.  There 
is,  iiy  tlie  hand  of  the  same  Philip,  the  baptism  of  a  man  who  was  doubly  excluded 
from  the  ancient  covenant  as  a  Gentile  and  as  a  eunuch  (Deut.  23  ;  1).  Tliere  is  the 
conversion  of  Saul,  who  is  to  be  the  principal  instnrment  of  the  woik  about  to  begin, 
the  peisecutor  but  the  successor  of  Stephen.  Thcire  is  through  the  ministry  of  Peter 
the  baptism  of  the  Gentile  Cornelius  and  his  family,  in  consequence  of  the  vision  by 
which  God  taught  that  apostle  that  the  wall  of  separation  raised  by  the  law  between 
Israel  and  the  Gentiles  was  thenceforth  broken  down.  There  is,  as  an  effect  of  the 
dispersion  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the  foundation  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  the 
first  church  of  heathendom,  the  point  from  which  Paul  will  take  his  course  to  the 
heathen  world,  his  permanent  basis  of  operations,  the  Jerusalem  of  the  Gentile  world. 
Those  six  events,  apparently  accidental,  but  all  converging  to  the  same  end,  are 
chosen  and  grouped  by  the  author  with  iucomparaole  skill,  to  show,  as  it  were,  to 
the  eye  the  ways  in  which  the  divine  wisdom  prepared  for  the  approaching  work,  the 
conversion  of  heathendom.  Chap.  12  concludes  this  part.  It  relates  the  martyrdom 
of  James,  the  attempted  martyrdom  of  Peter,  and  the  sudden  death  of  their  persecu- 
tor, the  last  great  representative  of  the  Jewish  nation,  Herod  Agrippa—  pei  secuting 
Israel  struck  dead  in  the  person  of  its  last  monarch.  3.  The  third  part  relates  the 
foundation  of  the  Cliurch  among  the  Gentiles  by  St.  Paul's  three  journeys.  His  im- 
prisonment at  Jerusalem  at  the  close  of  those  three  missionary  tours,  and  the  sur- 
roundiug  circumstances,  form  a  sort  of  counterpart  to  the  story  of  the  Passion  in  the 
Gospel.  It  is  the  last  act  in  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel  by  Israel,  to  which  the  con- 
duct of  the  elders  of  the  Roman  synagogue  toward  Paul  (chap.  28)  puts  the  finishing 
stroke.  What  could  be  grander  or  clearer  than  this  plan  ?  We  have  yet  to  wait  for 
a  history  of  the  Reformation,  giving  us,  within  the  space  of  a  hundred  pages,  as 
complete  and  precise  a  view  of  that  great  religious  revolution  as  that  which  Luke  has 
left  us  in  the  Acts,  of  the  yet  profounder  revolution  by  which  God  transferred  Ills 
kingdom  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles. 

C.  If  the  plan  of  Luke  is  admirable  from  the  controlling  unity  to  which  he  sub- 
ordinates so  great  a  variety  of  materials,  the  style  uf  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  pre 
sents  a  similar  phenomenon.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  a  striking  medley.  To  the  pro- 
logue of  classic  Greek,  classic  both  in  construction  and  vocabulary,  there  succeed  nui"- 
ratives  of  the  infancy,  written  in  a  style  which  is  rather  a  clecalque^'  from  llje  Aia- 
maic  than  true  Greek.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  author,  after  writing  the  prologue  in 
his  own  style,  here  uses  an  Aramaic  document  or  a  translation  from  the  Arauir.ic. 
We  shall  not  repeat  the  proofs  of  this  fact  which  we  have  given  in  our  exegesis  ;  in 
a  measure  thej^  extend  lo  the  whole  Gospel.  As  to  the  question  whether  it  is  Luke 
himself  who  has  translated  it  into  Greek,  or  whether  he  used  a  record  already  trans- 
lated, we  shall  answer  it  immediately.  For  the  present,  we  repeat  that  the  pioof 
which  Bleek  finds  to  support  the  second  view  in  the  expression  avaro/Jti  e^  inpovi,  i.  78, 

*  The  name  for  the  copy  of  a  picture  traced  on  transparent  paper  placed  over  the 
original. — Tk. 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  boo 

is  without  the  least  vnhie  (see  the  exegesis').  Firiiilly,  besides  the  prologue  written  in 
pure  Greek,  and  the  parts  whiclj  follow,  all  saturated  with  Araniaisnis,  we  find  other 
paits,  such  as  clmp  14  :  7-15  :  i'>2,  23,  2'3,  the  Hebrew  coloring  of  which  is  much  less 
j>roni)iuiced,  anil  which  presented  nothing  or  almost  nothing;  olTensive  to  Greek  ears. 
It  is  not  piobable  that  the}'  proceed  from  an  Aramaic  docmneul,  any  more  than  that 
Luke  comp'-.sed  them  freely.  In  the  fust  case  they  would  contain  more  Hebraisms  ; 
in  the  second,  they  would  Ijo  stili  more  completely  free  from  them.  It  is  therefdrc 
probable  that  tliuse  passages  were  composed  in  Greelc  by  Lid<eor  his  predecessor,  uot 
from  an  Aramaic  document,  but  from  an  oral  tradition  in  that  language. 

The  same  varietj'  of  style  reappears  in  the  Acts.  The  first  parts  of  this  book  be- 
tray an  Aramaic  source  in  eveiy  line.  This  character  gradually  disappears,  and  the 
last  parts  of  the  book,  iu  which  the  author  relates  the  scenes  in  which  he  seems  to 
Lave  been  personally  present,  are  written  iu  as  pure  Greek  as  the  prologue  of  the 
Gospel. 

On  ihe  other  baud,  and  notwithstanding  this  medley,  the  style  of  Luke  has  in 
many  respects  the  seal  of  a  well-maiked  unity.  Not  only  is  his  vocabnlarj-  every- 
where more  extensive  than  that  of  the  other  evangelists,  as  might  be  expected  from  a 
writer  familiar  with  classic  Greek  ;  for  example,  he  displays  iu  a  far  higher  degree 
the  facility  with  which  the  Greek  language  indefinitely  multiplies  its  stock  of  verbs, 
bj'  compounding  the  simple  ones  with  prepositions  and  otherwise  ;  but  he  has  also 
certain  expressions  which  exclusivelj''  belong  to  him,  or  which  he  uses  with  marked 
predilection,  and  which  are  scattered  uniformly  over  all  parts  of  his  two  writings, 
even  those  which  are  most  evidently  translated  from  the  Aramaic.  And  this  is  the 
proof  that  Luke  in  those  pieces  did  not  make  use  of  a  translation  already  made,  but 
was  himself  the  translator.* 

There  are  also  certain  correspondences  alleged  in  vocabulary  and  syntax  between 
Luke's  style  and  that  of  Paul.  Hohzmann  enumerates  about  200  expressions  or 
phrases  common  to  those  two  authors,  and  more  or  less  foreign  to  all  the  ether  !N.  T. 
writers,  f  The  anonymous  Saxon  has  taken  advantage  of  this  fact  in  support  of  his 
hypothesis,  according  to  which  Paul  himself  was  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel. 
But  this  proof  is  far  from  satisfactory  ;  the  phenomenon  is  explained,  on  the  one 
hand,  by  the  fact  that  Paul  and  Luke  are  the  only  two  writers  of  the  N.  T.  who  were 
educated  amid  classical  surroundings  ;  on  the  other,  by  the  personal  relations  which 
they  kept  up  so  long  with  one  another  ;  at  least,  if  we  are  to  trust  the  tradition  which 
ascribes  the  Gospel  to  Luke  (see  chap.  ii.  of  this  Conclusion). 

The  study  which  we  have  now  made  of  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  Luke's 
Gospel  supplies  us  with  the  necessary  data  for  reaching  the  conclusions  for  which 
we  have  to  inquire  regarding  the  origin  of  this  composition. 

*  Zeller  has  devoted  two  profound  essays  to  this  element  e.vclusively  belonging  to 
Luke  iu  his  two  narratives,  tlie  one  in  the  "  Theol.  Jahrb."  1843,  p.  467  et  xecj.,  the 
other  in  his  "  Apostelgesch. "  p.  390  et  seq.  He  enumerates  139  expressions  used 
preferentially,  and  134  terms  and  phrases  used  exclusively,  or  almost  exclusively,  by 
Luke  in  the  two  works.  The  following  are  examples  selected  at  random : 
avfi3dX?.£iv,  TrepOidfiTTEiv,  and  others  like  them  ;  avdlri\jni,  6  vipiaroi,  iji<pojio^,  ivrpoftoS, 
iraitaxpiifJ-a,  i^r'/S,  KuOe^i/i,  iv6,Tioi\  etc.  ;  kuI  ovto?,  ^i  Kai  (gradation),  tolto  on,  ri  on,  u'l 
before  a  proposition  which  serves  as  a  substantive,  KaOon,  fitv  ovv,  mi  yuf>,  'i6ov  ydp, 
k?.e}E  6e  (in  the  sense  so  often  pointed  out  in  our  commentary),  £jt'  aAnOeiai,  t§  ;;S 
ijfiefta: ,  KOTu  idoi  or  to  c'luOdc,  or  to  eiOio/uvov,  etc. 

f  For  example  :  nvO'  uv,  a?.?.'  oMe,  avTUa/i^uveTOai,  eKKUKetv,  napddeicoi,  aaurug, 
avTairoiojia,  oXveiv  tov  6e6i>,  arevi^eiv,  ^layyiX/.eiv,  dzcATtiCeiv,  etc. 


530  COMMEXTAllY    02f   ST.   LUKE. 

CHAPTER  11, 

THE   COMPOSITION   OF  THE   THIRD  GOSPEL. 

>  "We  have  before  us  in  this  chsipter  the  four  following  points  :  The  aim  of  the 
Gospel,  the  time  of  its  composition,  the  author  to  whom  it  is  to  be  ascribed,  the  flace 
where  he  composed  it. 

I  — The,  Aim. 

The  common  aim  of  our  Gospels  is  to  produce  faith  in  Hini  whom  they  describe 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  But  each  of  them  pursues  this  aim  in  a  partieular  way  : 
Matthew,  by  bringing  the  history  of  our  Lord  into  connection  with  the  Messianic 
prophecies  of  which  it  is  the  fulfilment  ;  Mark,  by  seeking  to  reproduce  the  unique 
splendor  which  rayed  forth  from  His  person  ;  John,  by  relating  the  most  salient  testi- 
monies and  facts  which  led  His  disciples  to  recognize  and  adore  Him  as  the  Son  of 
God.     What  is  the  means  by  which  Luke  wishes  to  gam  the  same  end  ? 

It  was  thought  enough,  even  down  to  our  own  day,  to  answer  that  he  had  sought 
to  trace  the  Gospel  history  as  faithfully  as  possible  with  a  view  to  believers  among  the 
Gentiles.*  This  solution  is  not  precise  enough  for  the  authors  of  the  critical  school, 
which  seeks  party  tendencies  everywhere  in  our  sacred  writings.  By  combining  with 
the  study  of  the  Gospel  that  of  the  Acts,  the  objects  of  which  seemed  more  pro- 
nounced, they  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  writings  of  Ijuke  are  nothing  else 
than  a  disguised  defence  of  the  person  and  preaching  of  Paul,  in  opposition  to  the 
persons  and  teaching  of  the  Twelve  ;  a  history  more  or  less  fictitious  intended  to' gain 
fuvor  for  that  apostle  with  the  .Judeo-Christian  party,  which,  down  to  the  second  cen- 
tury, remained  obstinately  hostile  to  him.  Zeller,  in  particular,  has  developed  this 
thesis  in  a  work  which  might  be  called  classic,  if  erudition  and  sagacitj'  could  stand 
for  justice  and  impartiality. f  MM.  Reuss  (§  210)  and  Nicolas  (p.  268)  also  ascribe  to 
the  Acts  the  aim  of  reconciling  the  Judeo-Christian  and  Pauline  parties,  but  without 
accusmg  the  author  of  wilfully  altering  the  facts. | 

It  must  indeed  be  confessed,  especially  if  we  take  account  of  the  narrative  of  tho 
Acts,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  in  writing  this  history  the  author  had  only 
the  general  intention  of  giving  as  complete  and  faithful  a  view  of  the  facts  as  pos- 
sible. A  more  particular  aim  seems  to  show  itself  in  the  choice  of  the  materials  which 
he  uses,  as  well  as  in  the  numerous  omissions  which  he  makes.  Whence  comes  it 
that,  of  all  the  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul  are  the  only  ones  brought  on  the  scene  ?  How 
are  we  to  explain  the  marvellous  parallelism  between  them  established  by  the  narra- 
tive V    Whence  the  predilection  of  the  author  for  everything  relating  to  the  person  of 

*  So  Origen  (Eus.  H.  E.  vi.  25),  Eichhorn,  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette;  Bleek,  stop 
short  at  this  general  definition.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  Acts  are  simply  re- 
garded as  a  history  of  the  apostolic  age  or  of  the  first  missions. 

f  Zeller  (p.  3Gi^)  calls  the  book  of  Acts  "  a  treaty  of  peace  proposed  to  the  Judeo- 
Christians  by  a  Paulinist,  who  wishes  to  purchase  from  them  the  acknowledgment  of 
Gentile  Christianity  by  a  series  of  concessions  made  to  .Tudaism." 

X  M.  Nicolas  thus  expresses  the  aim  of  the  Acts  :  "  To  extiugui-sh  the  discussions 
of  the  two  parlies,  and  lead  them  to  forget  tlieir  old  feuds  by  showing  them  that  their 
founders  .  .  .  had  labored  with  a  full  understanding  with  one  another  for  the 
propagation  of  Chiislianity. 


COMMENTAUV    ON    ST.   LUKE.  537 

the  latter  ;  the  thrice  repeated  niirrative  of  his  conversion,  tliedetailed  account  of  tlie 
varied  phases  of  his  trisil,  tlie  peeuliarly  niurked  notice  of  his  rclalions  to  tlie  Rimian 
mngistrates  ?  Wliy  relate  in  delail  llie  founding  of  (lie  churches  of  Greece,  and  not 
devole  a  line  to  that  of. so  iui[U)itaut  a  church  as  Alexandria  (to  which  Paul  remained 
a  stranger)  ?  To  what  purpose  the  circumstantial  recital  of  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  V 
And  why  does  the  account  of  his  arrival  close  the  book  so  abruptly?  Is  not  Over- 
beck  right  in  saying  that,  in  reality,  "  the  suliject  of  the  book  is  not  the  gospel,  but 
the  gospel  preaclied  by  Paul."  Even  the  lirst  part,  tnat  which  relates  to  Peter,  seems 
to  be  only  a  preparation  for  the  account  of  Paul's  ministry.  The  author  seems  to 
say  :  Great  as  Peter  was  in  his  work  in  Israel,  Paul  was  not  one  whit  behind  him  in 
his  among  the  Gentiles  ;  the  extiaordiuary  miracles  and  successes  by  which  God 
accredited  the  former  were  repeated  in  no  less  a  measure  in  the  case  of  the  other.* 

AVe  do  not  think  that  the  recent  defenders  of  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts'  (MayerholT,  Baumgarten,  Lekebusch)  have  succeeded  alto.gether 
in  parrying  this  blow.  They  have  attempted  to  explain  part  of  those  facts,  while 
udmitling  that  the  theme  of  the  Acts  was  solel}^  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  from 
Jerusalem  to  Rome  ;  but  this  very  demonstration  breaks  down  at  several  points,  and 
especiall}'  in  the  last  chapter.  For  when  Paul  reaches  this  capital  it  is  not  he  who 
brings  the  gospel  to  it  ;  rather  it  is  the  gospel  which  receives  him  there  (28  :  15)  :  and 
in  what  follows,  the  founding  of  a  church  at  Rome  by  Paul  is  not  related.  As  Over- 
beck  says,  "  The  Acts  relate,  not  how  the  gospel,  but  how  Paul,  reached  Rome." 

"While  fully  recognizing  that  the  purely  historical  aim  is  unsatisfactory,  it  seems 
to  us  that  that  which  Zeller  proposes  is  inadmissible.  Not  only,  as  Bleek  oiiserves, 
must  the  coidl}'  calculated  deception,  which  would  be  inevitable  in  an  author  invent- 
ing a  narrative  with  the  view  of  forging  history,  appear  absolutely  improbable  to 
every  reader  who  gives  himself  up  to  the  impression  which  so  simple  a  compositioa 
produces  ;  but  besides,  how  are  we  to  set  before  our  minds  the  result  proposed  to  be 
gained  in  this  way '^  Did  the  author  mean,  asks  Overbeck,  to  influence  the  Judco- 
Christians  to  unite  with  Paul's  party  V  But  in  that  case  it  was  a  most  unskilful  expe- 
dient to  set  before  them  the  conduct  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  the  odious  light  in  which 
it  appears  throughout  the  entire  history  of  the  Acts,  from  the  persecutions  against  the 
apostles  in  the  first  chapters,  down  to  the  dark  plots  in  which  the  Sanhedtiin  itself 
does  not  shrink  from  taking  part  against  the  life  of  St.  Paul.  IL  must,  then,  be  by 
acting  on  his  own  part}',  the  Paulinists,  that  the  author  hoped  to  effect  the  fusion  of 
the  two  camps.  By  presenting  the  picture  of  the  harmonj'  between  Paul  and  the 
Twelve  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  15),  he  proposed  to  bring  the  Paulinists  of  his  time  to  con- 
cede to  the  Judeo-Christians,  as  Paul  had  formerly  done  to  the  apostles,  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Mosaic  rites.  But  the  Judeo-Chrislians  themselves  of  that  period  no 
longer  held  to  this  concession.  It  appears  from  the  "  Clementine  Homilies"  that  cir- 
cumcision was  aVmndoned  by  this  party.  The  author  of  the  Acts,  a  zealous  Paulinist, 
must  tiien  have  asked  his  own  to  yield  to  tlicir  adversaries  more  than  the  latter  them- 
selves required  !  Finally,  what  purpose,  on  Zeller's  sup[)nsition.  would  be  served  by 
the  entire  transition  part  (chap.  G-12)  ?    This  elaborate  enumeration  of  the  circum- 

*  It  is  known  that  Schneckenburger  regarded  this  parallel  between  Peter  and  Paul 
as  the  principal  thought  and  aim  of  the  Acts  (without  thinking  that  the  truth  of  -the 
narraiive  was  lliereli}'  compromised).  It  is  only  as  a  ciiri/>si/)n  \\ui\  we  refer  to  the 
opiniiXi  (if  Aberle,  who  rcgarrls  the  Acts  as  a  memoir  prepared  with  a  view  to  Paul's 
defence  in  his  trial  before  the  imperial  tribunal. 


538  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

stances  -which  went  to  pave  the  way  for  the  free  evangelization  of  the  Gentile  world 
mii^ht  and  should  have  its  place  in  a  truthful  and  sincere  narrative  of  Ihe  progress  of 
the  Christian  work  ;  it  was  a  digression  in  a  romance  intended  to  raise  Paul  to  the 
level  of  Peter.  The  modified  form  given  by  MM.  lieuss  aud  Nicohis  to  this  con- 
ciliation-hj^pothesis  has  no  force  unless  there  is  ascribed  to  the  apostolic  Judeo-Chris- 
tiauity  and  Paulinism  a  meaning  aud  importauce  which,  in  our  opinion,  it  never  had 
(see  chap.  4).  What  hj'pothesis  does  Overbeck  substitute  for  that  of  Zeller,  which 
he  so  well  combats  ?  According  to  this  critic,  the  author  of  the  Acts  does  not  think 
ef  leconciling  the  two  camps.  It  is  the  Pauline  party  alone  which,  working  on  its 
own  account,  here  attempts  by  the  pen  of  one  of  its  members  "  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing with  its  past,  its  peculiar  origin,  and  itsfirst  founder,  Paul  "  (p.  xxi.).  Such, 
after  so  much  beating  about,  is  the  last  word  of  Baur's  school  on  the  aim  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Luke.  It  is  on  the  face  of  it  a  somewhat  strange  idea,  that  of  a  party  com- 
posing a  historical  book  to  come  to  a  clear  understanding  with  its  past.  It  is  not, 
however,  iuconceivable.  But  if  tlie  author  really  means  to  come  to  an  understanding 
about  tlie  beginnings  of  his  parly,  it  is  because  he  knows  those  beginnings,  and  be- 
lieves in  them.  The  past  is  to  hini  a  definite  quantity  by  whicli  he  measures  the 
present.  But  in  that  case,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  wilful  falsifications  of  history  in 
which,  according  to  Overbeck  himself,  he  indulged  ?  The  miracles  of  St.  Peter  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Acts  are  set  down  to  the  account  of  legend  ;  but  those  of  Paul,  in  the 
second,  were  knowingly  invented  by  the  author.  To  restore  the  past  at  one's  own 
caprice,  is  that  to  come  to  a  clear  understanding  with  it  ?  Much  more,  the  author  of 
the  xVcts,  not  content  with  peopling  the  night  of  the  past  with  imaginary  events,  went 
the  length  of  putting  hinis;lf  "  into  systematic  opposition"  (p.  xxxvi.)  to  what  Paul 
says  of  himself  in  liis  epistles.  To  contradict  systematically,  that  is  to  say,  know- 
ingly, the  be.st  authenticated  documents  proceeding  from  the  founder  of  the  party  — 
such  is  the  v/ay  "  to  come  to  light  regarding  tlie  person  of  that  cliief  "  !  The  Tubin- 
gen criticism  has  entangled  itself  in  a  cul-de-sac  from  which  it  cannot  escape  except 
by  renouncing  its  first  error,  the  opposition  between  the  principles  of  Paul  and  those 
of  the  Twelve.     We  shall  return  to  this  question  in  our  last  chapter. 

The  reperusal  of  the  third  Gospel  is  enough  to  convince  any  one  that  its  author 
seriously  pursues  a  historical  aim.  This  appears  from  the  numerous  chronological, 
geographical,  and  other  like  notices  of  which  his  work  is  full  (Quirinius,  2:2;  the 
cycle  of  dates,  3:1;  the  age  of  Jesus,  5  :  23  ;  the  second-first  Sabbath,  6:1;  the 
details  regarding  the  material  support  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles,  8  :  1-3  ;  compare 
also  9  :  51,  13  :  22,  17  :  11,  21  :  37,  38,  etc.).  The  narrative  of  the  Acts  is  every- 
where strewn  with  similar  remarks  (on  Bethany,  1  :  12  ;  expulsion  of  the  Jews  by 
Claudius,  18  :  2  ;  Gallio,  5  :  12  ;  the  money  value  of  the  books  burned,  19  :  I'J  ;  the 
.details  of  the  disturbance  at  Ephesus,  chap.  19  ;  the  fifty  days  between  Passover  and 
Pentecost,  of  which  the  narrative  of  the  journey  enables  us  to  give  an  exact  account, 
20  :  G — 21  :  16  ;  the  number  of  soldiers,  cavalry  and  infantry,  forming  the  escort, 
23  :  23  ;  the  circumstantial  account  of  the  shipwreck,  27  ;  Ihe  nationality  aud  figure- 
head of  the  vessel  which  carries  Paul  to  Kome,  28  •  11).  The  historical  purpose  of 
the  narrative  appears  from  the  programme  marked  out  in  the  prologue  :  to  relate  all 
things,  from  the  tery  first,  in  order,  exactly  (1  :  3). 

Yet  it  is  certain,  on  Ihe  other  hand,  that  no  more  than  the  other  evangelists  does 
the  author  relate  history  merely  as  history — that  is  to  say,  to  interest  the  reader  and 
satisfy  his  curiosity.     He  evidently  proposes  to  himself  a  more  exalted  aim.     The 


COMMKNTAliY    ON    .ST.    LLKK.  539 

tone  of  bis  narrative  proves  Ihis,  and  he  tells  us  so  himself.  Ho  has  before  his  eyes 
a  reader  who  is  alread}'  abreast  of  the  essential  points  of  the  p:ospel  verity,  and  wimni 
he  wishes  to  furnish  wilh  the  means  of  confirminsr  the  reality  of  the  object  of  his 
faith  (r/)p  aa(t>u?.£iuv).  It  is  with  tin's  view  that  he  presents  him  with  a  full,  exact,  anO 
consecutive  desciiptiou  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  "  that  he  might 
[thus  himself]  verify  the  infallible  certainty  of  those  things  wherein  he  has  been  in- 
structed." 

In  what  did  those  instructions  received  by  Theophllus  consist  ?  According  to  St. 
Paul  (1  Cor.  15  :  3-o),  the  essential  points  of  elementary  instruction  were  these  two  : 
Christ  dead  for  our  sins,  and  risen  tlie  third  day.  In  Rome  10  :  G-10  the  same  apos- 
tle thus  defines  the  object  of  faith,  and  the  contents  of  the  Christian  profession  : 
Christ  descended  for  us  into  the  abyss,  and  ascended  for  us  to  heaven  ;  comp  also 
Horn.  4  :  23-35.  Such  is  likewise  the  summary  of  Peter's  preaching  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

Nevertheless,  at  the  house  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10),  Peter  already  feels  the  need  of 
preparing  for  the  proclamation  of  those  decisive  saving  truths  by  a  rapid  sketch  of 
the  ministry  of  Jesus.  At  Antioch  of  Pisidia  (Acts  13  :  23,  24),  Paul  goes  back,  like 
Peter,  even  to  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist.  For  there  is  in  the  mind  of  every 
man,  face  to  face  with  an  important  historical  event,  the  felt  need  not  merely  to  ac- 
count for  whiit  it  contains,  but  also  for  the  way  in  wiiicli  it  has  come  about.  And 
when  the  event  has  exercised,  and  continues  ever  to  exercise,  a  deep  influence  on  the 
lot  of  humanity,  and  on  that  of  every  individual,  then  the  need  of  knowing  its  be- 
ginnings and  development,  its  geneais,  if  I  may  so  speak,  takes  forcible  possession  of 
every  serious  mind.  And  this  desire  is  legitimate.  The  more  value  the  event  has, 
the  more  important  is  it  for  the  conscience  to  defend  itself  from  every  illusion  in 
regard  to  it.  Such  must  have  been  the  position  of  a  large  number  of  believing  and 
cultured  Greeks,  of  whom  Tbeophilus  was  the  representative.  What  mysteries  must 
have  appeared  to  such  minds  in  those  iinheard  of  events  which  form  the  goal  of  gos- 
pel histoiy  :  a  man  dying  for  the  salvation  of  all  other  men  ;  a  Jew  raised  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  power  over  all  things  ;  and  that  especially  when 
those  events  were  presented  apart  from  their  couneclian  with  those  which  had  pre- 
ceded and  prepared  for  them,  having  all  the  appearance  of  abrupt  manifestati(;ns 
from  heaven  !  To  how  many  objections  must  such  doctrine  have  given  rise  ?  It  is 
not  without  reason  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  cross  as,  to  tli"  6 rieks  foolishness.  Was 
il  not  important  to  supply  a  point  of  suppoit  for  such  instructions,  and  in  order  to  do 
that,  to  settle  them  on  the  solid  basis  of  facts  ?  To  relate  in  detail  the  beginning  and 
middle  of  tiiis  history,  was  not  this  to  render  the  end  of  it  more  worthy  of  faith  ?  In 
dealing  with  such  men  as  Tbeophilus,  there  was  an  urgent  necessity  for  suppljing 
history  as  the  basis  of  their  catechetical  training. 

No  one  could  understand  better  than  St.  Paul  the  need  for  such  a  work,  and  we 
should  not  be  sur])rised  thnuizh  it  were  to  him  that  the  initiative  was  due.  It  is  true 
there  existed  already  a  considerable  number  of  accounts  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  ; 
but  according  to  1  :  3  (explained  in  contrast  with  vers.  1,  2),  those  works  were  only 
collections  of  anecdotes  put  together  without  connection  and  without  criticism.  Such 
compilations  could  not  suffice  to  meet  the  want  in  question  ;  there  was  needed  a  his- 
tory properly  so  called,  such  as  that  which  Luke  announces  in  his  programme.  And 
if  Paul  among  the  helpers  who  surrounded  him,  had  an  evangelist  distinguished  for 
his  gifts  and  culture— and  we  know  from  2  Cor.  8  :  18,  19,  that  there  was  really  one 


540  COMMEXTAKl    Vis    ST.   LUKE. 

of  this  description — how  could  he  help  casting  his  eyes  on  him,  and  encouraging  him 
to  uudeitake  so  excellent  a  work  ?  Such  is  the  task  which  Luke  has  discharged.  It 
is  neiiher  by  adducing  tlie  prophecies,  nor  by  the  personal  greatness  of  Jesus,  nor  by 
his  declarations  respecting  His  heavenly  origin,  that  the  author  of  tiie  thiid  Gospel 
has  souglit  to  establish  or  strengthen  ^he  faith  of  his  readers.  It  is  by  the  consecu- 
tive exposition  of  that  uuique  history  whose  final  events  have  become  the  holy  ob- 
ject of  faith.  The  beginning  explains  the  middle,  and  the  middle  the  end  ;  and  from 
this  illamiiiated  close  the  light  is  reflected  back  on  the  events  which  have  ltd  to  it. 
It  is  a  wtll-compacted  whole,  in  which  the  parts  mutually  support  one  another. 
Luke's  Gospel  is  the  only  one  which  in  this  view  presents  us  with  the  Gospel  history. 
It  is  very  truly,  us  it  has  been  called,  the  Gospel  of  the  development  (M.  Felix  Bovct). 
The  heavenly  exiiltation  of  Jesus  was,  if  one  may  so  speak,  the  first  stage  in  the 
march  of  Chiistian  work.  There  was  a  second  more  advanced  :  the  state  of  things 
which  this  work  had  reached  at  the  time  when  the  author  wrote.  The  name  of  Christ 
preached  throughout  all  the  world,  the  Church  founded  in  all  the  cities  of  the  em- 
piie  ;  such  was  the  astounding  spectacle  which  this  great  epoch  presented.  Tliis  re- 
sult was  not,  like  the  life  of  .Jesus,  an  object  of  faith  to  the  Gentiles  ;  it  was  a  fact  of 
felt  experience.  It  required  to  be,  not  demonstrated,  but  explained,  and  in  some  re- 
spects justified.  How  had  the  Church  been  founded,  and  how  had  it  grown  so 
rapidly?  How  had  it  become  open  to  the  Genliles?  How  were  the  people  of  Israel, 
from  the  midst  of  whom  it  had  gone  forth,  themselves  excluded  from  it  ?  How  rec- 
oncile with  this  unexpected  event  God's  faithfulness  to  His  promises?  Could  the 
work  of  Christianity  really  be  under  those  strange  conditions  a  divine  work?  All 
these  were  questions  which  might  justly  be  raised  in  the  minds  of  believers  from 
among  the  Gentiles,  as  is  proved  by  the  passage  9-11  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
where  Paul  studies  this  very  problem  with  a  view  to  the  wants  of  ancient  Gentiles 
(11  :  13).  Only,  while  Paul  tretits  it  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian  speculation, 
and  answers  it  by  a  Theodicee,  the  book  of  Acts  labors  to  solve  it  iiistoricaily.  The 
first  part  of  this  book  exhibits  the  Church  being  born  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  glorified  Christ,  but  coming  into  collision  at  its  first  step  with  official  Judaism. 
The  second  part  exhibits  God  preparinfj  for  the  new  progress  which  this  work  was  to 
make  through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  Israel  at  the  same  lime 
shedding  the  blood  of  Stephen,  and  the  King  of  Israel  slaying  or  disposed  to  slay  the 
two  chief  apostles — in  a  word,  the  rebellion  of  Israel  in  tlie  Holy  Land.  Tlie  lust 
part,  finally,  represents  the  divine  work  embracing  the  Gentile  world,  and  the  ministry 
of  Paul  crowned  with  a  success  and  with  wonders  equal  at  least  to  those  which  liad 
signalized  the  ministry  of  Peter — most  certainly  this  parallelism,  as  Schneckenbuiger 
has  observed,  is  before  the  mind  of  the  author,  while  Judaism  continues  its  opposi  iuu 
in  every  city  of  the  pagan  world  where  Paul  preaches,  and  at  length  consummates 
that  opposition  in  the  very  lieart  of  the  empire,  in  the  capital  of  the  world,  by  the 
conduct  of  the  rulers  of  the  Roman  synagogue.  Such  is  the  end  of  the  book.  Is  not 
the  intention  of  such  a  writing  clear?  The  narrative  is  a  justification.  But  this 
justification  is  not,  as  has  been  unworthily  thought,  that  of  a  man,  St.  Paul.  Tlie  aim 
of  the  Acts  is  more  exalted.  By  its  simple  and  consecutive  statement  of  evLtil.«,  iLis 
book  purports  to  give  the  explanation  and  justification  of  the  way  in  which  that  guat 
religious  revolution  was  cariied  through,  which  transferred  the  kingdom  of  God  from 
the  Jews  io  the  Gentiles  ;  it  is  the  apology  of  the  divine  work,  that  of  God  H'mself. 
God  had  left  the  Gentiles  only  for  a  time,  the  times  of  ignorance  ;     He  had  tempo- 


CUMMKNTAKY    ON    ST.    IlKK.  541 

rarily  let  themwalk  in  their  own  ways  (Acts  17  :  30  ;  14  :  1(5).  At  tlie  end  of  this  time, 
Israel,  first  saved,  was  to  become  the  iuslrument  uf  universal  salvation,  the  apostle  of 
Christ  to  all  nations.  But  this  glorious  calling  which  the  apostles  so  often  held  out  to 
it  was  obstinately  rejected,  and  the  kingdom  of  God.  instead  of  being  established  by 
it,  was  forced  to  pass  aside  from  it.  It  was  therefore  not  God  who  broke  wllh  His 
people;  it  was  the  people  who  broke  with  their  God.  Suclf  is  the  fact  which  the 
book  of  Acts  demonstrates  historically.  It  is  thus,  in  a  waj',  the  counterpart  of  Gene- 
sis. The  latter  relates  how  the  transition  took  place  from  primitive  universalism  to 
theocralic  particularism,  through  God's  covenant  with  Abraham.  The  Ads  relate 
how  God  icturned  from  this  temporary  particularism  to  the  conclusive  luiiversalism, 
which  was  ever  His  real  thought.  But  while  simply  describing  the  fact,  the  Acts  ex- 
plain and  justify  the  abnormal  and  unforeseen  form  in  which  it  came  about. 

The  end  common  to  Luke's  two  writings  is  therefore  to  strenglhen  faith,  by  ex- 
hibiting the  ])rinciple  and  phases  of  that  renewal  which  his  eye  had  just  witnessed. 
Two  great  results  had  been  successively  effected  befoie  the  eyes  of  his  contempora- 
ries. In  the  person  of  Jesus,  the  world  had  received  a  Saviour  and  blaster  ;  this  Sav- 
iour and  Master  had  established  His  kingdom  over  humanitj'.  The  Gospel  sets  forth 
the  first  of  those  events  ;  the  Acts  the  second.  The  Gospel  has  for  its  subject  the 
invisible  revolution,  the  substitution  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Himself  of  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Spirit  for  the  reign  of  the  letter,  the  transforming  of  the  relations  of  God 
to  man,  salvation,  the  principle  of  that  historical  revolution  which  was  to  follow. 
The  Acts  narrate  the  external  revolution,  the  preaching  of  salvation  with  its  conse- 
quences, the  acceptance  of  the  Gentiles,  and  their  substitution  in  the  place  of  Israel. 
Salvation  and  the  Church,  such  are  the  two  works  of  God  on  which  the  author  meant 
to  shed  the  light  of  the  divine  mind.  The  Ascension  linked  them  together.  The  goal 
of  the  one,  it  was  the  foundation  uf  the  other.  Hence  the  narrative  of  the  Ascension 
becomes  the  bond  of  the  two  writing.".  The  aim  of  the  work,  thus  understood,  ex- 
plains its  beginning  (tiie  announcement  of  the  forerunner's  birth),  its  middle  (the  As- 
cension), and  its  end  (Paul  and  the  synagogue  at  Rome). 

II. — The  J'ime  of  Componition. 

The  very  various  opinions  regarding  the  date  of  our  Gospel  (Introd.  §  3)  may  be 
arranged  in  three  groups.  Tlie  first  class  fix  it  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
between  60  and  70  ;  the  second,  between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of 
the  first  century  (Holtzmann,  from  70  to  80  ;  Keim,  about  90)  ;  the  third,  Baur  and 
his  school,  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century  (Yolkmar,  about  100  ;  Hilgeufeld, 
Zeller,  from  100  to  110  ;  Baur,  after  130>.  The  traditions  which  we  have  quoted  (§  3) 
and  the  facts  which  we  have  enumerated  (§  1)  seem  to  us  at  once  to  set  aside  the  dates 
of  the  third  group,  and  to  be  unfavorable  to  the  second.  Tradition  has  preserved  to  us 
only  one  precise  date,  that  given  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  when  he  places  the  com- 
position of  Luke  before  that  of  Mark,  and  fixes  the  latter  at  the  period  of  Peter's  so- 
journ at  Rome— that  is  to  saJ^  in  G4  (According  to  \Yieseler).  or  between  04  and  67 
(according  to  others).  Following  this  view,  our  Gospel  must  have  been  composed  be- 
tween 60  and  67.  The  opinion  of  Irenneus  is  not,  as  is  often  said,  opposed  to  this 
(§  3).  Let  us  examine  the  objections  raised  by  criticism  to  this  traditional  date, 
"which  would  place  the  composition  of  our  Gospel  antecedently  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. 


542  COMMEXTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

1.  The  great  uumber  of  gosjjel  narratives  already  published  before  our  Gos^pf  1, 
acc(*rding  to  the  prologue,  presupposes  a  somewhat  advanced  period  of  tlie  apostolic 
age.*  But  "why  might  uot  numerous  attempts  at  compiling  tradilious  relative  to  the 
history  of  Jesus  have  been  made  during  the  first  thirty  years  w^hich  followed  events 
so  great?  "  Though  the  ait  of  writing  had  not  j'et  existed,  it  would  have  been  in- 
vented for  such  a  subject,"  says  Lange.  When,  especially,  the  generation  of  the 
immediate  witnesses  of  the  life  of  our  Saviour  began  to  be  cleared  away  by  death, 
and  when  the  apostles,  His  olRcial  witnesses,  left  Palestine  to  go  and  preach  to  other 
nations,  was  it  not  inevitable  that  the  gospel  literature  should  appear  to  fill  up  this 
double  void  ?  Now  it  was  about  the  year  GO,  at  the  latest,  that  those  circumstances 
emerged. 

2.  The  work  of  Luke  betrays  a  certain  amount  of  cril  icism,  in  regard  to  its  sources, 
which  leads  to  a  date  posterior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  from  the  time 
when  the  author  had  before  him  a  certain  number  of  works  on  the  subject,  it  is  evi- 
dent tliat  he  could  not  compose  his  narrative  without  estimating  those  sources 
critically  ;  that  might  be  done  at  any  period.     All  that  was  needed  for  it  was  leisure. 

3.  The  influence  of  legend  (Overbeck)  is  alleged  in  the  writings  of  Luke,  and  a 
Pauliuism  already  in  a  stale  of  decadence  (Reuss,  so  far  as  the  Acts  is  concerned). 
But  has  the  third  Gospel  presented  to  us  a  single  description  resembling  that  of  the 
fire  lighted  in  the  Jordan  at  the  time  of  the  baptism,  which  .Justin  relates  ;  or  a  single 
word  which  has  any  resemblance  to  the  account  of  the  marvellous  vines  of  the  mil- 
lennial kingdom,  in  Papias  ;  or  a  single  scene  amplified  like  that  which  is  drawn  by 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  of  the  interview  between  .Jesus  and  the  rich  young  man 
(see  on  the  passage)  ?  Such  are  the  traces  of  the  influence  of  myth.  Luke  is  entirely 
free  from  it.  As  to  the  weakening  of  the  Pauline  idea,  we  shall  not  be  able  to  treat 
it  thoroughly  till  chap.  4.  We  shall  only  say  here,  that  so  far  from  its  being  the  fact 
that  Luke  gives  us  a  Paulinism  in  a  state  of  decline,  it  is  Paul  himself  who,  in  the 
Acts,  following  the  example  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospel,  agrees  to  realize  Christian  spiiit- 
uality  only  in  the  restricted  measure  in  which  it  is  practicable.  Fidelity  to  principle 
does  not  pieventmenof  God  from  exercising  that  prudence  and  charity  which  in  prac- 
tice can  take  account  of  a  given  situation. 

4.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  is  described  in  the  prophecy  of  .Jesus  in  so  x)recise  and 
detailed  a  form  (19  :  43,  44  ;  21  :  20-24),  in  comparison  with  the  compilations  of  Mat- 
thew and  jVIark,  that  it  is  impossible  to  assert  that  Luke's  account  is  not  subsequent 
to  the  event.  Jesus  predicted  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that  is  certain.  The 
witnesses  who  accused  Him  of  this  before  the  Sanhedrim  did  not  invent  what  was  ab- 
solutely false,  and  Stephen  rested  his  statement  on  some  such  prophecy  (Acts  6  :  14), 
Kow  if  .Jesus  predicted  this  catastrophe  as  a  prophet,  there  is  no  reason  why  He 
should  not  have  prophetically  announced  some  details  of  it.  But  if  He  predicted  it 
simply  through  the  force  of  His  political  insight.  He  could  not  but  be  aware  also  that 
this  destruction  implied  a  siege,  and  that  the  siege  could  not  take  place  without  Ihe 
means  in  use  at  the  time  (investment,  trenches,  etc.),  and  would  be  followed  by  all  the 
well-known  terrible  consequences.  Now  nothing  in  the  details  given  passes  l.>eyond 
the  measure  of  those  general  indications. 

5.  The  final  advent  of  our  Lord,  it  is  further  said,  stands  in  Mark  and  Matthew  in 

*  Keim  :  "  Ei.e  reiche  Evangelien-Literatur  zeigtdeii  vorgerucktenBliithbestand 
des  Christenthuins. " 


COMMKXTAUY    OX    ST.    l.lKE.  543 

immediate  connection  with  the  dcsl ruction  of  Jcrusnlem,  while  in  Luke  it  is  widely 
sppanited  from  it  by  the  interval  of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  (21  :  24).  In  otlier  i)as- 
sages,  besides,  liie  idea  of  tl»e  proximity  of  the  Parousia  is  designedly  effaced  ;  so 
I)  :  27.  where  Luke  makes  Jesus  say  that  some  of  the  disciples  present  shall  see,  not 
"  (he  Son  of  man  coming  in  Ills  kingdom"  (.Matthew),  but  sinii)!}'  the  I.iiif/doiii  of  God. 
This  all  proves  that,  at  the  period  when  Luke  was  writing,  experience  had  already 
led  the  Church  to  give  up  the  idea  that  the  return  of  Christ  would  inunediately  follow 
(el'OFui  in  ]\[atth('w)  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  "W^e  hold  that  the  relation  of  im- 
mediate succession  between  the  two  events  laid  down  by  Matthew  proves  rhat  his 
Gospel  was  composed  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  we  cannot  adurit, 
"what  IS  held  by  the  entire  body  almost  of  modern  critics,  that  the  interval  supposed 
by  Luke  between  those  two  events  proves  the  date  of  his  Gospel  to  he  after  that 
catastrophe.  We  have  alread}'-  treated  several  points  bearing  on  this  question  in  our 
exegesis  (pp.  44o,  44G).  The  decisive  question  here  is  how  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
spoke  on  the  subject.  We  think  we  have  given  indubitable  evidence,  from  a  very 
large  number  of  His  sayings,  that  in  His  view  His  advent  was  to  be  separated  by  a 
considerable  period,  not  only  from  the  time  that  He  was  speaking,  but  from  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  which,  according  to  Him,  was  to  happen  during  the  lifetime 
of  the  contemporarj' generation.  The  bridegroom  who  delavs  his  coming;  the  jjor- 
ter  who  has  to  watch  late  or  till  midnight,  or  till  cock-crow,  or  even  till  morning, 
Wiiiling  for  his  master  ;  the  parable  of  the  leaven,  which  exhibits  the  gospel  slow]}' 
and  by  a  process  wholly  from  within  transforming  the  relations  of  human  life,  that 
gjspel  which  must  be  preached  before  His  return  throughout  the  whole  world,  while 
the  apostles  shall  not  even  have  had  lime  to  announce  it  to  all  the  cities  of  Israel  be- 
fore the  judgment  of  the  nation,  etc.  etc. — all  proves  to  us  that  Jesus  Himself  never 
confounded  in  one  and  the  same  catastrophe  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end 
of  the  pi'esent  dispensation.  Hence  it  follows,  that  if  Jesus  expressed  His  view  on 
this  subject,  He  must  have  spoken  as  Luke  makes  Him  speak,  and  not  as  Matthew 
makes  Him  speak  ;  that  consequently  He  must  really  have  delivered  two  distinct  dis- 
courses on  those  two  subjects  so  entirely  different  in  His  ej'es,  and  not  one  merely  in 
which  He  blended  the  two  events  in  a  single  description  (^latt.  24).  Now  this  is  pre- 
cisely what  Luke  says  (see  chap.  17,  on  the  return  of  Christ,  and  chap.  21,  on  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem).  If  it  is  so,  with  what  right  can  it  be  alleged  that  Luke  could 
not  recover  the  historical  truth  on  this  point  as  he  has  succeeded  in  doing  on  so  many 
others,  und  that  his  essentially  more  accurate  account  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  is  pro- 
duced only  by  a  deliberate  alteration  of  the  documents  which  he  had  before  him  ? 
What  !  Luke  returned  by  the  path  of  error  or  falsehood  to  historical  truth  !  Really 
criticism  here  exacts  more  from  sound  sense  than  it  can  bear.  Besides,  it  is  psycho- 
logically impossible  that  Luke  should  have  indulged  in  manipulating  at  pleasure  the 
sayings  of  that  Being  on  whom  his  faith  was  fixed,  whom  he  regarded  as  the  Son  of 
God.  Again,  in  this  respect  ciiticism  ascribes  a  procedure  to  him  which  sound 
sense  rejects.  The  sayings  of  our  Lord  may  have  been  involuntarily  modified  by  tra- 
dition, and  have  come  to  the  evangelists  in  different  and  more  or  less  altered  forms  ; 
but  we  cannot  allow  that  they  invented  or  changed  them  deliberately.  In  what  re- 
Bults  are  we  landed  if  we  take  the  opposite  view  ?  It  is  asserted  that  some  unknown 
poet  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  about  68.  the  eschatological  discour.se,  ^lutt.  24; 
then,  ten  or  twenty  years  after  the  destiuclion  of  Jerusalem.  Luke  not  less  knowinirly 
and  deliberately  transformed  this  diseouise  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  case  I     But 


544  ■  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LLKE. 

we  ask  :  if  such  were  really  the  origin  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  would  they  l)e  wliat 
they  are  ?  Would  their  general  harmony,  and  the  points  so  often  observed  at  which 
they  fit  into  one  another,  be  what  they  are,  especially  in  our  synoptics  ? 

In  opposition  to  those  reasons,  whicli  appear  to  us  to  be  of  little  weight,  the  follow- 
ing are  the  proofs  whicli  the  book  itself  furnishes,  to  the  fact  of  its  being  composed 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  :  1.  The  aim  which,  as  we  have  seen,  explains 
the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  coincides  thoroughly  with  that  of  the  great  epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  ebpecially  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  besides,  the  correspondences  in  detail 
between  the  third  Gospel  and  that  letter  are  so  many  and  striking,  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  deny  that  the  two  writings  proceeded  from  the  same  surroundings  and  at 
the  same  period.  For  they  are  evidently  intended  to  meet  the  same  practical  wants.* 
The  main  fact  here  is,  that  Luke  resolves  historically  precisely  the  same  problem  of 
the  rejection  of  Israel  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  which  Paul  treats  speculatively 
in  the  important  passage,  liom.  9-11. 

2.  The  purity  of  the  tradition,  the  freshness  and  simplicity  of  the  narratives,  and 
especially  the  appropriateness  which  Luke  is  able  to  restore  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus, 
and  which  alone  makes  their  full  charm  felt,  do  not  admit  of  the  view  that  this  book 
was  written  at  a  considerable  distance  from  the  events,  and  that  it  was  wholly  outside 
the  circle  of  the  first  witnesses.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  burst  over 
the  Holy  Land  and  scattered  that  Piimitive  Cliristian  Sociely,  when  such  information 
was  collected  as  that  to  which  we  owe  records  so  vivid  and  pure. 

3.  The  book  of  Acts,  certainly  written  after  the  Gosptl,  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  composed  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  True,  it  has  been  alleged  that 
8  :  26  proves  the  contrary,  but  without  the  least  foundation,  as  Overbeck  acknowl- 
edges. The  words:  "Now  it  is  desert,"  in  this  passuge,  lefer  not  to  the  town  of 
Gaza,  but  to  the  route  pointed  out  by  the  angel,  either  to  distinguish  it  from  another 
more  frequented  way  (Overbeck),  or,  as  appears  to  us  more  natural,  to  explain  the 
scene  which  is  about  to  follow.  How  would  it  be  possible  for  this  writing,  at  least 
in  its  last  lines,  not  to  contain  the  least  allusion  to  this  catastrophe,  nor  even  u  word 

*  In  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke,  Jesus  is  described  as  the  son  of  David  by 
Hte  descent  from  Mary,  and  as  the  Son  of  God  by  His  supernatural  birth  ;  St.  Paul 
begins  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Romans  with  the  words  :  "  Made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  lo  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of  the  spirit  of 
holiness."  Luke's  two  writings,  in  their  unity,  demonstrate  Israel's  right  of  priority 
in  regard  to  the  kingdom  ot  God  ;  what  else  is  this  than  the  privilege  of  the  npurou, 
first,  expressly  attributed  to  the  Jews  by  St.  Paul,  Rom.  1  :  10  ?  Jesus,  in  Luke,  is 
circumcised  on  the  eigliih  day,  and  presented  in  the  temple  on  the  fortieth — two  cer- 
emonii.'S  which  subject  Him  during  His  earthly  life  to  the  law  ;  Paul,  as  if  ho  were 
alluding  to  those  facts  related  only  by  Luke,  calls  Jesus  "  a  minister  of  the  circum- 
cision" (Rum.  15  :  8),  and  speaks  of  llim,  Gal.  4:4,  "  made  of  a  woman,  rjiade  under 
the  law."  Luke,  in  the  Acts,  declares  theuniveisalily  of  the  divine  revelation  which 
preceded  that  of  the  Gospel :  "  God  left  not  Himself  without  witness  among  the  Gen- 
tiles ;"  Paul,  Rom.  1  :  19,  20,  likewise  declares  the  revtlatioo  of  the  invisible  God 
made  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  works  of  creation.  Luke  points  to  the  Good  Samaritan 
doing  instinctively  what  neither  the  priest  nor  the  Levite,  though  holders  of  the  hiw, 
did  ;  Paul,  Rom.  2  :  14-15,  26-27,  speaks  of  the  Gentiles  who  do  by  nature  the  things 
contained  in  the  law,  and  who  thereby  shall  condemn  the  Jew,  who  hears,  but  al  the 
same  time  breaks  that  law.  Luke  speiiks  of  the  times  of  ignorance,  during  which 
God  suffered  the  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways  ;  Paul,  of  the  forbearance  which 
God  showed  in  regard  to  past  sins,  during  the  time  of  His  long-suffering  (Rom.  3  :  25). 
It  would  be  tedious  to  prolong  this  parallel. 


lOMMKNTAKY    ON    ST.   LLKK.  545 

toiicliing  Ihe  death  of  St.  Paul,  which  must  have  preceded  it  by  a  few  years?  We 
have  already  discussed  this  quesliou  (lulrod.  p.  8  d  veq.).  We  shall  sum  up  by  sa}'- 
iiig  that  if,  ou  tiie  one  liaiul.  liie  mculiuu  of  Ihe  term  of  two  years,  in  the  last  verses 
of  tlie  Acts,  dearly  assumes  tliat  a  uew  phase  iu  Paul's  life  had  btirun  after  his  cap- 
tivity, ou  the  other  hand  the  complete  silence  of  the  author  as  to  the  end  of  the 
ai)osile's  career  proves  that  this  phase  had  not  yet  terminated.  The  Acts  must  there- 
fuie  have  been  wiitlen  iu  the  interval  between  the  end  of  Paul's  first  captivity  at 
Rome  (iu  the  sprmgof  the  year  64)  and  his  martyrdom  (about  07).*  The  Gospel  nuist 
have  been  comj)osed  a  short  time  before. 

Again,  it  has  been  alleged  that  a  considerable  interval  must  have  elapsed  between 
the  composition  of  those  two  writings  ;  because  the  tradition  followed  by  Luke  in  the 
Ads,  in  regard  to  the  ascension,  differs  from  that  which  dictated  the  account  of  the 
event  in  the  Gospel,  and  consequently  supposes  new  information.  We  have  proved 
iu  cur  exegesis  that  this  hypothesis  is  erroneous.  The  account  iu  the  Gospel  is  given 
summaril}',  with  the  view  of  presenting  in  the  subsequent  work  a  more  complete 
view  of  lire  event. 

4.  We  have  explained  in  the  Introduction,  the  influence  which  Luke  exercised  on 
the  unauthentic  f  conclusion  of  3Iark,  by  supposing  that  the  first  of  those  works  ap- 
peared about  the  time  wheu  the  composition  of  the  second  must  have  been  interrupted 
(at  the  passage,  Mark  IG  ;  8).  We  shall  here  lake  a  step  further.  If  it  is  true,  as 
seems  to  be  the  consequence  of  the  exegesis,  that  Luke  was  not  acquainted  either  with 
the  Gospel  of  JIatthew  or  ]\Iark,  it  follows  that  he  wrote  shortly'  after  those  two  Gos- 
pels had  ap[)eared  ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  failed  to  know  works  of  such  im- 
portance on  tlio  subject  which  he  was  treating.  If  therefore  our  exegetical  result  is 
established,  we  must  concludejUiat  the  Gos[)el  of  Luke  was  composed  almost  simul- 
taneously with  the  other  two  sy'noptics.  We  shall  examine  the  premises  of  this  con- 
clusion more  closely  in  chap.  3.  Now,  if  it  follows  from  the  confounding  of  the  two 
di.scourses  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  on  the  end  of  the  world,  in  Matthew 
and  Murk,  that  those  writings  are  anterior  to  the  first  of  those  events,  supposing  that 
Luke  did  not  know  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  them,  he  must  share  m  this  prioiity. 

It  seems  to  us  ou  all  these  accounts  that  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the 
Acts  must  be  placed  between  the  years  64  and  67,  as  was  indicated  by  tradition. 

111.— The  Aitthor. 

Here  we  start  from  a  fact  universally  admitted,  namely,  the  identity  of  Ihe  author 
of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts.  This  is  one  of  the  few  points  on  which  criticism  is 
unanimous.  Hollzmaon  says  (p.  374)  :  "  It  must  now  be  admitted  as  indisputable, 
that  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  is  one  and  the  same  person  with  the  author  of  the 
Acts."  ludeed,  the  identity  of  the  style,  the  corres[)nudence  of  the  plan,  and  the 
continuity  of  the  narrative,  do  not  admit  of  the  least  doubt  in  this  respect,  as  Zeller 
also  proves. 

Who  is  this  author  ?    Tradition  answers  :  Luke,  Paul's  fellow-laborer.     If  it  goes 

*  The  words  of  Paul,  Acts  20  :  25,  do  not  prove  that  the  Ads  were  written  after 
Paul's  death,  as  has  been  alleged.  For  Luke  does  not  make  Paul,  any  more  than 
Jesus,  speak  according  to  his  own  fancy. 

\  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  wide  difference  of  view,  according  to  the 
estimate  of  authorities  regarding  this  portion.     Itmay  prove  clearly  authentic — J.  H. 


54G  COMMESTTAnY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

SO  far  as  to  ascribe  to  Paul  himself  a  share  in  the  composition,  this  is  a  later  amp/i- 
fication  which,  as  we  have  seen  (Introd.  p.  17),  is  foreign  to  the  primitive  statement. 

No  other  objections  are  raised  against  the  truth  of  this  traditional  assertion,  than 
the  arguments  alleged  to  prove  the  composition  of  our  two  writings  in  the  second 
century,  a  time  at  whicli  there  could  no  longer  be  a  fellow-laborer  of  St.  Paul.  Those 
argimients  having  been  refuted,  it  only  remains  to  bring  forward  from  those  two 
writings  the  positive  reasons  to  be  alleged  in  support  of  the  indication  furnished  by 
tradition  : 

1.  It  appears  from  the  prologue  that  the  author  was  not  one  of  the  apostles,  but 
one  of  their  immediate  disciples,  "a  Christian  of  the  second  apostolic  generation" 
(Penan).  This  is  implied  in  the  words  :  "As  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which 
from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  of  these  things." 

3.  This  disciple  was  a  Christian  from  among  the  Gentiles  ;  for,  as  Holtzmann 
observes,  it  is  not  probable  that  a  Jewish  Christian  would  have  spoken  of  the  elders 
of  tlie  Jews  (7  :3),  of  a  city  of  the  Jews  (23  :  51),  etc.,  etc.)  The  position  of  John,  in 
whom  we  find  similar  expressions,  was  entirely  dilferent.  In  his  case  this  form  of 
expression  is  explained  by  reasons  of  a  peculiar  nature.) 

3.  This  Greek  Christian  was  a  believer  formed  in  the  school  of  Paul.  This  is 
proved  by  that  breath  of  broad  universalism  wbich  inspires  his  two  writings,  and 
more  paiticularly  by  the  correspondence  as  to  the  institution  of  the  Holy  bupper  in 
his  account  and  Paul's. 

4.  He  must  even  have  been  one  of  the  apostle's  fellow-laborers  in  the  work  cf 
evangelization,  at  least  if  he  is  speaking  of  himself  in  the  passages  where  the  first 
Ijersnn  plural  occurs  in  the  book  of  Acts.  And  this  explanation  seems  to  be  the  only 
admissible  one.  If  it  is  well  founded,  it  fuither  follows  that  the  author  cannot  be 
one  of  the  fellow  laborers  of  Paul  who  are  designated  by  name  in  the  Acts,  for  he 
never  speaks  of  himself  except  anonymously. 

5.  This  apostolic  helper  must  have  l)een  a  man  of  letters.  This  is  proved  by  the 
prologue  prefixed  to  his  work,  the  classic  style  of  this  piece,  as  well  as  of  those  pas- 
sages of  the  Acts  which  he  composed  independently  of  any  document  (the  last  parts 
of  the  book)  ;  finally,  by  the  refined  and  delicate  complexion  of  mind  and  the  histori- 
cal talent  which  appear  in  his  two  writings. 

Now  all  those  features  belong  signally  to  Luke.     "We  have  seen  (Introd.  p.  11)  : 
1.  Paul  ranks  Luke  among  the  Christians  of    Greek  origin.  2.  He  assigns  him 
a  distinguished  jjlace  within  the  circle  of  his  disciples  and  fellow-laborers.     3.  The 
title  physician  which  he  gives  him  leads  us  to  ascribe  to  him  a  scientific  and  literary 
culture  probably  superior  to  that  of  the  other  apostolic  helpers. 

Not  only  do  the  criteria  indicated  all  apply  to  Luke,  but  they  do  not  apply  well  to 
any  other.  Barnabas  was  of  Jewish  oiigin,  for  he  was  a  Levite  ;  Silas  also,  for  he 
belonged  to  the  Primitive  Church  at  Jerusalem.  Timothy  was  a  young  Lycaonian, 
probably  without  culture,  which  explains  the  timid  shrinking  which  seems  to  have 
characterized  him  as  an  evangelist  (1  Cor.  IG  :  10,  11  ;  2  Tim.  1  :  6-8).  Besides,  all 
these  are  designated  by  name  in  the  Acts.  Luke  only  (with  the  exception  of  Titus) 
never  appears  by  name.  We  see  that  the  evidences  borrijwed  from  Luke's  writings 
harmonize  with  those  furnished  by  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  that  both  coincide  with 
the  traditional  statement.  Now,  as  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Primitive  Church  gave 
itself  to  the  critical  investigation  which  we  have  been  making,  this  agreement  be- 
tween the  critical  result  and  the  historical  testimony  raises  the  fact  of  the  authorship 
of  St.  Luke  to  the  highest  degree  cf  scientific  cerlainty. 


COMMENTAKY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  547 

Moreover,  all  tlie  autliois  whose  juili;nieiit  liiis  not  l)ecii  perverted  by  the  pre- 
judices of  llio  Tul)iii.iien  criticism  are  at  one  respecling  llie  person  of  the  autiior.  "  It 
is  iinpossihle,"  sa^'s  Hollzniauii,  "  to  unclerslaiid  •why  Luke  should  not  he  llie  author 
of  this  Gospel."  "  The  author  of  this  Gospel,"  says  M.  Kenan  ("  Vie  de  Jesus,"  p. 
16),  "  is  certainly'  the  same  as  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Now  the 
author  of  the  Acts  is  a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  a  title  which  perfectly  applies  to 
Luke."  Keim  thus  expresses  himself  (p.  81)  :  "  There  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  this 
writing  was  composed  by  the  companion  of  Paul.  At  least  it  is  inconiprehensil)le 
how  by  pure  cruijeclurc  a  man  should  have  been  definitely  singled  out  whose  name 
80  rarely  appears  in  the  epistles  of  the  apostle." 

IV. — The  Place  of  Composition. 

Some  very  unocrlain  traditions  place  the  composition  (as  we  have  seen,  Introd. 
§  o)  at  Alexandria  (many  .mss.  Mun.),  in  Greece  (Beotia  and  Achuia,  Jerouic},  or  at 
Rome.     A  modern  critic,  Kostliu,  has  proposed  Asia  Minor. 

We  find  little  ground  in  the  two  writings  for  deciding  between  those  different  possi- 
bilities. The  explanations  appended  to  certain  geographical  names  by  no  means  prove, 
as  some  seem  to  tliink,  that  the  author  did  not  write  in  the  country  to  which  those 
localities  belonged  ;  they  only  prove  that  he  did  not  suppose  those  localities  known  to 
Theophilus  or  to  his  reailers  in  general.  Thus  it  cannot  be  concluded,  as  lias  been 
attempted  from  the  exi)lanation  respecting  the  cil}'  of  Philip[)i  (Acts  16  :  12),  that  he 
did  not  write  in  Macedonia  ;  nor  from  those  about  Athens  (17  :  21),  that  he  did  not 
write  in  Attica  ;  nor  from  those  about  tlie  Fair  Havens  and  Phenice  (27  :  8-12),  that 
he  did  not  write  in  Crete  ;  and  as  little  from  explanations  about  localities  in  Palestine 
(Luke  1  :  2(5,  4  :  31,  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  cities  of  Galilee  ;  8  :  26,  the  country  of 
the  Gadarenes,  opi)Osite  Galilee  ;  23  :  51,  Arimathea,  a  city  of  the  Jews  ;  24  :  13, 
Emmaus,  GO  furlongs  from  Jerusalem  ;  Acts  1  :  12,  the  Mount  of  Olives,  near  Jeru- 
salem), that  he  did  not  write  in  Palestine.  What  those  passages  prove  is 
that  he  did  not  write  for  the  Christians  of  Palestine  or  Macedonia,  or  Attica 
or  Crete,  at  least  exclusively.  Because  of  the  absence  of  similar  explanations  regard- 
ing certain  Sicilian  and  Italian  localities  (Acts  28  :  12,  Syracuse  ;  ver.  13,  Rheginm, 
Puteoli  ;  ver.  15,  Appii  Forum  and  the  Three  Taverns),  it  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  he  wrote  in  Sicily,  in  Italy,  or  in  Rome,  but  only  that  he  knew  those  localities 
to  be  familiar  to  his  readers.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  from  the  country 
of  his  readers  we  may  draw  an  inference  in  regard  to  the  place  of  composition  ;  for 
it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  an  author  writes  for  the  public  with  which  he  finds  him- 
self immediately  surrounded. 

The  evidences  which  Zeller  thinks  he  has  discovered  in  favor  of  Rome  as  the  place 
of  composition  cither  depend  on  his  explanation  of  the  aim  of  Luke's  writings,  which 
has  been  proved  false,  or  arc  unsupported,  for  example,  Avhen  he  alleges  the  interest 
whi(;h  the  author  shows  for  this  citj'  by  making  the  foundation  of  the  Roman  church 
by  Paul  the  culminating  point  of  his  narrative.  Now  tlie  fact  is,  as  we  have  proved, 
that  this  last  chapter  of  the  Acts  has  an  altogether  different  bearing. 

The  reasons  alleged  by  Kostliu  and  Overbeck  in  favor  of  Ephesus  are  not  more 
conclusive.  1.  It  is  asserted  that  Marcion,  on  his  way  from  Asia  Minor  to  Rome, 
brought  thence  Ijuke's  Gospel.  But  by  that  time  this  writing  was  s[)read — this  is 
proved  by  facts  (In'rod.  §  1),  as  well  as  the  other  two  synoptics— throughout  all  the 
churches.  Marcion  did  not  introduce  it  into  western  Christendom  ;  he  merely  chose 
it  among  the  received  Gospels  as  the  one  which  he  could  the  most  easily  adapt  to  his 


548  COMMENTARY    OX   ST.   LUKE. 

system.  ".  The  author  of  the  Acts  loves  to  describe  the  persons  Tvho  afterward  played 
a  part  in  Asia  Minor.  But  .John,  the  chief  personage  of  the  church  of  Asia  at  the 
end  of  the  first  century,  is  wholly  eclipsed  in  the  Acts  by  Peter  and  Paul.  3.  The 
Acts  relate  with  predilection  Paul's  sojourn  at  Ephesus.  True,  but  in  such  a  way  aa 
to  place  in  relief  Peter's  ministry  at  Jerusalem,  Paul's  sojourn  at  Ephesus  was  the 
culminating  point  of  his  apostolate,  as  the  times  which  followed  Pentecost  were  the 
apogee  of  Peter's. 

Evidences  so  arbitrary  cannot  lay  a  foundation  for  any  solid  result.  Once  assured 
of  the  authoi's  person,  we  should  rather  start  from  his  history.  Luke  was  at  Rome 
with  St.  Paul  from  the  spring  of  the  j'ear  62  (Acts  28)  ;  he  was  still  there  when  the 
epistles  were  sent  to  the  Colossians  and  Philemon.  But  when  the  apostle  wrote  to 
the  Philippians,  about  the  end  of  63  or  beginning  of  64,  he  had  already  left  Borne,  for 
Paul  sends  no  greeting  from  him  to  this  church,  so  well  known  to  Luke.  When, 
therefore,  the  two  years'  captivity  of  the  apostle  spoken  of  in  the  Acts  came  to  a 
close,  and  consequently  that  captivity  itself,  he  was  no  longer  with  the  apostle. 
Some  years  later,  when  Paul,  imprisoned  rt  Rome  for  the  second  time,  sent  from  that 
city  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  Luke  was  again  with  him.  Where  did  he  reside 
in  the  interval?  Probably  in  Greece,  among  those  churches  of  Macedonia  and 
Achaia,  in  whose  service  he  had  labored  along  with  Paul,  and  in  Achaia  rather  than 
Macedonia,  seeing  Paul  does  not  salute  him  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  Might 
it  not  then  be  at  this  period,  and  in  this  latter  country,  "  in  the  countries  of  Achaia 
and  Beotia,"  as  Jerome  says,  that  he  composed  his  Gospel?*  As  to  the  Acts,  he 
must  have  composed  it  somewhat  later,  probably  at  Rome  beside  Paul,  shortly  before 
his  martyrdom  in  67.  The  parchments  which  Paul  asked  Timothy  to  bring  hitu 
from  Asia,  at  the  time  when  only  Luke  was  with  him,  were  perhaps  docimients 
which  were  to  be  used  in  this  work  ;  for  example,  the  summaries  of  the  admirable 
discourses  at  Aniioch,  Athens,  and  Miletus,  which  are  like  jewels  set  in  the  narrative 
of  the  Acts.  The  w^ork  was  published  when  the  head  of  the  apostle  fell  under  the 
sword.  Hence  the  absence  of  all  allusion  to  that  event.  The  composition  of  the 
Acts,  both  in  respect  of  place  and  date,  would  be  nearly  connected  with  that  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which  Luke's  writings  have  several  other  features  of 
agreement  which  are  highly  remarkable,  f 

*  We  went  further  in  the  development  of  this  hypothesis  in  our  first  edition.  We 
supposed  Corinth,  and  even  the  house  of  Gaius,  Paul's  host  in  that  city  (Rom. 
16  :  23),  as  the  place  of  composition.  M.  G.  Meyer  has  rightly  observed  in  his  review, 
that  in  this  case  there  was  no  reason  to  hinder  Luke  from  taking  textually  from  First 
Corintiiians  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper.  We  therefore  with- 
draw those  hypothetical  details. 

f  As  to  the  situation,  the  author  of  this  epistle  (we  should  say  Luke,  if  the  reasons 
in  favor  of  Barna!)as  or  Silas  did  not  seem  to  us  to  preponderate)  is  about  to  set  out 
from  Italy  with  Timothy,  just  delivered  from  prison  (after  the  martyrdom  of  Paul). 
For  internal  analogies  compare  the  following  passages  : 

Luke  1:2,  Heb.  2 :  8. 

"     2  :  16 "     1  :  6,  8,  10. 

"2:7,  .         .         .         .  "2:14. 

"     2:40,52 "     2  :  17,  etc. 

In  Luke,    the  transformation  of    the  In  the  Epistle  to  the    Hebrews,   the 

Mosaic  system  into  spiritual  obedience.  transformation    of    the    Levitical    cuUvs 

into  a  spiritual  cnltns. 
In  both,  the  idea  of  the  human  development  of  Jesus  forming  the  foundation  of 
the  Chri.stoloi,^'. 


COMMESTAUY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  54*J 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   SOURCES  OP    LUKE,   AND  THE  KELATION  OP   THE  SYNOPTICS  TO  ONE   ANOTHEU. 

We  have  reached  the  most,  arduous,  but  not  the  least  important  part  of  our  task. 
This  domain  is  tiiat  of  h^'potbesis  ;  but  as  it  is  from  the  most  remote  and  inaccessible 
muuulaiu  legious  that  the  rivers  wliich  fertilize  and  tlie  torrents  wbicii  devastate 
roine  down,  so  it  is  from  the  obscure  regions  into  whieh  we  are  about  to  enter  that 
we  get  those  widclj^  various  and  yet  influential  crilicisms  on  tlie  value  of  tiie  Gospel 
history,  which  find  their  way  even  to  the  people.  We  shall  first  lake  up  what  con- 
cerns the  third  Gospel  in  particular  ;  then  we  shall  extend  our  study  to  the  other  two 
syniiptics.  For  those  three  writings  are  of  a  piece,  and  every  definitive  judgment  on 
the  one  involves  a  result  gained  in  regard  to  the  other  two. 

I. — The  Sources  of  Luke. 

Two  questions  present  themselves  : 

I.  Is  Luke  dependent  either  on  Matthew  or  Mark  ? 
II.  And  if  not,  what  were  the  true  sources  of  this  work  ? 

I. 

We  have  throughout  the  whole  of  our  commentary  exhibited,  in  the  narrative  and 
style,  those  characteristics  which  seem  to  us  to  demonstiate  Luke's  entire  indepen- 
dence in  respect  of  Mark  and  Matthew.  It  only  remains  to  recapitulate  those  proofs, 
while  we  apply  them  to  refute  the  contrary  hypotheses. 

A.  As  to  Luke's  iudependeuce  in  relation  to  MaWieio,  we  shall  not  rest  our  conclu- 
sion on  the  numerous  narratives  wiiich  the  first  has  more  than  the  second.  This  fact 
•would  prove  only  one  thing  :  that  if  Matthew  served  as  a  source  to  Luke,  he  was  not 
the  only  one,  at  least  unless  we  hold,  with  Baur,  that  Lake  invented  whatever  he 
contains  more  than  Matthew — an  assertion  -which  seems  to  us  to  be  already  sufficiently 
refuted.  Neither  shall  we  allege  the  many  narratives  of  Matthew  which  are  wanting 
in  Luke  ;  for  we  are  aware  of  the  reasons  which  might  lead  the  follower  to  omit  cer- 
tain facts  related  hy  his  predecessor.     But  we  appeal  to  the  following  facts  : 

1.  Luke's /ifo/i  is  entirely  independent  of  that  of  Matthew;  for  it  appears  to  U3 
superfluous,  after  the  investigations  which  we  have  just  carried  through,  again  to  re- 
fute the  opinion  of  Keim,  according  to  which  Luke's  plan  is  no  other  than  that  of 
Matthew  spoiled.  Wh.it  appears  to  us  above  all  inconceivable,  is  that  in  the  account 
of  the  journey  (from  9  :  51)  Luke  should  not  even  have  mentioned  Perea,  which  Mat- 
thew expressly  makes  the  theatre  of  the  corresponding  journey  (19  : 1).  Especially 
at  the  point  where  Luke's  narrative  rejoins  Matthew's  (18  :  15,  comp.  with  Matt. 
19  :  13).  one  would  expect  such  an  indication  without  fail. 

2.  The  series  of  iiarrationa  in  Luke  is  wholly  independent  of  that  in  ]\ratthew. 
Two  or  three  analogous  groups  like  those  of  the  l>aptism  and  tempi ation,  of  the  two 
Sabbatic  scenes  (Luke  G  -A  ct  scq.  and  parall.)  of  the  aspirants  to  the  kingdom  of  God 
(Luke  9  :  57  ct  seq.  and  parall.).  and  of  the  various  scenes  belonging  to  the  Gadara  ex- 
cursion (Luke  8  :  22-5G).  etc.,  are  easily  explained  by  the  moral  or  chronological  con- 
nection of  the  events,  in  virtue  of  which  they  formed  one  whole  in  tradition.     Be- 


550  COMMENTARY   0^   ST.   LUKE. 

sides,  these  are  not  wanting  features  to  prove,  even  in  tliis  respect,  the  independence 
of  the  two  narratives.  For  example,  the  insertion  of  the  accounts  of  tlie  healing  of 
the  paralytic  and  of  the  calling  of  Matthew  in  ]\Iallhew's  narrative  of  the  Gadara  ex- 
cursion, and  Luke's  adding  of  a  third  aspirant  uuliuown  to  Matthew. 

3.  In  the  narrative  parts  comninn  to  both,  the  independence  of  Luke  in  the 
details  of  ilie  accounts  is  obvious  at  every  word.  Tlie  author  who  wrote  Luke  1 :  2 
could  not  have  had  before  him  ]\ralt.  1  :  2,  unless  he  had  the  formal  intention  of  con- 
tiadicliug  him.  So  Keim  supposes  that  Luke  had  a  Matthew  before  him  which  did 
not  yet  contain  tlie  accounts  of  the  infancy  !  In  the  narrative  of  tlie  temptation, 
would  Luke  take  the  liberty  of  inverting  the  order  of  the  teraplaliuns,  and  of  omitting 
the  appearance  of  the  augels  ?  "Would  he  suppose  the  rite  of  the  confession  of  sins 
in  his  description  of  John's  baptism  ?  In  his  account  of  the  baptism  would  he  mod- 
ify the  terms  of  the  divine  utterance  ?  So  in  that  of  the  transfiguration  (see  the  exe- 
gesis). In  the  narrative  of  the  calling  of  Matthew  himself,  would  he  change  that 
apostle  into  an  unknown  person,  named  Levi  ?  Would  he  expressly  refer  to  another 
Sabbath  the  second  Sabbatic  scene  (6  :  6)  which  Matthew  places  on  the  same  daj^  as 
the  first  (12  :  9)  ?  Would  he  mention  a  single  demoniac  at  Gadara,  a  single  blind  mau 
at  Jericho,  in  cases  where  Matthew  mentions  two?  When  borrowing  the  conversa- 
tion at  Cesarea  Philippi  from  Matthew,  would  he  omit  to  indicate  the  locality  where 
it  took  place?  Or  would  he  introduce  into  the  text  of  his  predecessor  such  puerile 
changes  as  the  substitution  of  eiglit  days  for  six,  in  the  narrative  of  the  transfigura- 
tion, etc.,  etc.  ?  We  shall  be  told  he  used  another  source  in  those  cases  in  which  he 
had  more  confidence.  This  supposition,  which  we  shall  examine  mure  closely, 
would  solve  some  of  those  enigmas  indifferently,  but  not  all.  In  particular,  the  omis- 
sions of  details  remain  uuexphiined. 

4.  In  reporting  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  not  to  speak  here  of  the  dislocation  of  the 
great  discourses,  how  could  Luke  alter  so  seriously  the  terms  of  such  a  document  as 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  or  of  a  declaration  so  grave  as  that  regarding  the  blasphemy 
again.st  the  Spirit,  etc.,  etc.;  and  then,  on  the  other  hand,  indulge  in  such  petty 
changes  as  the  transformation  of  the  sheep  fallen  into  the  pit  into  an  ox,  or  of  the  two 
sparrows  which  are  sold  for  a  farthing  into  five  which  are  teold  for  two  farthings  ? 
How  could  he  introduce  into  the  middle  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  two  sayings 
which  seem  to  break  its  connection  (6  :  39,  40),  and  which  must  be  taken  from  two 
discourses,  held  in  entirely  different  situations,  according  to  Matt.  (15  :  14,  10  :  25), 
where,  besides,  they  have  an  altogether  different  application?  Have  we  here  again 
the  fact  of  another  document  ?  But,  in  conclusion,  to  what  purpose  does  he  use 
Matthew  ?  And  would  this  preference  for  the  other  source  go  so  far  as  to  lead  him 
to  omit  such  sayings  as  these  :  "  Come  unto  me  .  .  ."  which  Matthew  presented 
to  him  ?  For  who  c^uld  take  in  earnest  the  attempt  to  answer  this  proposed  by  Holtz- 
rnann  (see  pp.  310,  311)  ? 

5.  The  chief  reason  for  which  it  is  thought  necessary  to  regard  Matthew  as  one  of 
Luke's  sources,  is  the  identical  expressions  and  parts  of  phrases  which  occur  both  in 
the  discourses  and  in  the  parallel  narratives.  But  whence  comes  it  that  this  resem 
blance  is,  as  M.  Nicolas  says,  intermittent,  and  that  not  only  in  the  same  narrative, 
but  in  the  same  paragraph  and  in  the  same  phrase  ?  Did  Luke  slavishly'  copy  Mat- 
thew for  a  quarter  of  a  line,  and  then  in  the  next  quarter  write  independently  of 
him  ?  But  this  is  child's  pla3\  if  the  sense  is  the  same  ;  it  is  still  worse,  if  the  change 
alters  the  sense.     We  know  the  answer  which  is  again  given  here  :  he  had  not  Mat- 


COMMENTARY    ON   ST.   LUKE.  651 

tlicw  onl3',  but  other  documents  as  well  before  him  ;  he  combines  together  those  vari- 
ous texts.  Behold  our  iiuthor,  tlien,  borrowing  three  words  from  one  document,  two 
from  another,  four  from  ii  third,  and  that  in  every  plirase  from  beginning  to  entl  of 
his  Gospel  ?  Who  can  admit  the  idea  of  such  patcliworli  ?  Need  \vu  here  reproduce 
the  well-known  jest  of  Schleiermaclier  at  Eichhorn's  hypothesis  ("  Schr.  d.  Luk."  p. 
C)?  Is  it  not  enough  to  say,  with  Lange,  "  The  process  of  death  to  explain  the  work 
of  life?"  No;  such  mechanical  inlaying  could  never  have  become  that  flowing, 
simple,  and  limpid  narrative  which  we  admire  in  our  Gospel.  Let  tlie  i)arable  of  the 
sower  be  reperused  in  a  synopsis,  comparing  the  two  texts,  and  it  will  be  felt  that  to 
maintain  that  tlie  first  of  those  texts  is  derived  from  the  other,  in  wliole  and  in  part, 
is  not  only  to  insult  llie  good  faitli,  but  the  good  sense,  of  the  second  writer. 

6.  "Weiss  has  pointed  out  that  a  number  of  Maltliew's  favorite  expressions 
{fiaaikEia  rHiV  wpavHtv,  evayye/.tov  ri/S  jSaaiTi^iai,  napovnia,  cvvri/ieca  tov  at<l)i'oc, 
ae/.r/vta^eaOai,  iv  EKEii'(^  tui  Kaipij,  etc.)  are  completely  foreign  to  Luke.  If  he  had 
copied  Matthew's  text,  how  could  one  or  other  of  those  terms  have  failed  now  and 
ap^ain  to  escape  from  his  pen  ? 

7.  Luke's  Gospel  abounds  in  Aramaizing  forms,  not  only  in  the  passages  peculiar 
to  himself,  but  also  in  those  to  which  Matthew  has  parallels.  And,  strange  to  say, 
thuse  Aramaisms  are  wholly  wanting  in  the  text  of  the  latter.  "W'e  find,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  pure,  native,  vigorous  Greek.  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  Matthew  was 
Luke's  principal  source,  is  to  believe  that  the  latter,  himself  a  Greek,  and  writing  foi 
Greeks,  had  arbitrarily  foisted  his  foreign  Aramaic  phrases  into  the  style  of  his  predc- 
cessor.  Who  can  imagine  such  an  anomaly  :  the  Hebrew  writer  writing  good  Greek 
for  Hebrews,  and  the  Greek  writer  cramming  his  Greek  text  with  Aramaisms  for 
Greeks  !  * 

B.  Luke's  indei^endence  in  relation  to  Mark  appears  to  us  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing facts : 

1.  Luke's  plan  is  certainly  not  borrowed  from  Mark,  who  has  no  other  plan  than 
the  known  contrast  between  the  Galilean  ministry  and  the  sojourn  at  Jerusalem,  and 
whose  narrative  is  composed,  besides,  of  detached  scenes.  That  which  Klo?termana 
discovers  appears  to  us  to  be  due  rather  to  the  critic  than  to  the  evangelist.  The  unUy 
of  Clark's  w^ork  lies  elsewhere  ;  it  is  found  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Himself,  whose 
greatness  forms  the  common  basis  of  all  those  varied  scenes,  and  in  the  impression  of 

*  The  phenomenon  is  found  on  the  largest  scale.     Let  the  following  parallels  be 
compared  : 

Luke.  Matthew. 

5:1:    kyivEzo .  .  .  koI  avro;  i/v  .  .  .  koI  4  :  18  :  7rcoi,T«r(Jv  61  die. 

e\6c. 
5  :  12  ;  5  :  17,   18  :    Knlh/iv    ...    koL  8  :  1  ;  9  :  1,  2  ;  12  :  9. 

fivToi  7/v  .   .   .    Kal  7/aav  .   .   .  ;    6:1. 
8  :  22  :  koI  iyevero  .   .   .    kuI  avrdi   ...  8:18:  J'toi^  6i  kKl'Aevaev. 

9:18.  28,  37,  57.  16  :  13  ;  17  :  1.  14 ;  8  :  19. 

11  : 14  ;  18  :  35  ;  19  :  29.  12  :  22 ;  20  :  29  ;  21  :  1. 

24  :  4,  15,  30,  51. 
20:11:     Koi    npoaeOeTO     ite/i^iai    erepov  21  :  36 :   TraAiv  dniaTsiTiev  u}.?.ovi. 

(ver.  12) ;  conip.  3  :  20. 
20  :  21  :  '/M/i^dvEiv  Trpuaunov.  22  :  10  :  elr  npoau-ov  /iAeneiv. 

Other  Hebraistic  forma  in  Luke :    aalifiarov  ^evrepo-pdiTov,   6:1;   /ieya?.tn'ecv  fierd, 
1  ;  58 ;  the  kqc  .  .  .   kuI  .  .   .  ;  24  :  23-35,  etc. 


553  COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

admiration  which  it  inspires.     Therein  there  is  nothing  resembling  the  progressive  de- 
velopment which  comes  to  light  in  Luke's  work. 

3.  No  doubt  as  to  the  series  of  events,  especially  at  the  beginning,  there  is  a 
greater  agreement  between  Mark  and  Luke  than  between  Luke  and  Matthew  ;  but 
u;)t  without  transpositions  much  more  difficult  to  explain,  on  the  supposition  that 
Mark  was  used  by  Luke,  than  is  the  analogy  in  some  series,  without  any  depend- 
ence on  Luke's  part. 

3.  There  is  in  Luke  a  more  important  omission  Ihaa  that  of  some  particular  ac- 
counts ;  there  is  the  omission  of  the  whole  cycle,  Mark  G  :  45-8  :  2G  (Matt.  14  :  22-16  :  12). 
How  is  such  a  suppression  conceivable,  if  Luke,  who  nevertheless  aimed  at  being 
complete  {-n-datv,  1  :  3),  makes  use  of  Mark  ?  It  has  been  supposed  that  there  was  a 
gap  in  the  copy  of  Mark  which  he  possessed  ;  can  this  reply  suffice  ? 

4.  The  same  dilTerence,  besides,  meets  us  in  regard  to  the  special  details  of  the 
narratives,  and  in  regard  to  the  stjie  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  as  between  Luke  and 
Matthew.  If  Luke  copies  Mark,  why  does  he  put  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  at 
Jericho  at  the  departure  of  Jesus,  while  Mark  puts  it  at  His  entrance  ?  Why  does 
he  omit  the  name  of  Bartimeus,  and  the  picturesque  details  of  Mark's  description  ? 
"What  purpose  could  it  serve  to  mutilate  at  will  such  dramatic  accounts  as  that  of  the 
healing  of  the  lunatic  son?  By  what  caprice  substitute  for  the  words  of  Mark: 
"  Save  a  staff  only,"  these  apparently  contradictory  ones  :  "Nothing,  not  even  a 
staff  "  ?  And  when  Luke  clearly  places  the  expulsion  of  the  buyers  and  sellers  from 
tlie  temple,  on  the  morrow  after  Palm-day,  why  put  it  on  that  same  day?  Does 
Luke  make  sport  of  history,  and  of  the  Master's  words  ? 

5.  Of  the  very  many  Hebraisms  which  we  have  pointed  out  in  Luke,  only  a  very 
few  are  found  in  Mark.  Once  more,  then,  Luke  made  the  medley  !  He,  the  author 
of  Greek  origin,  who  could  write  classic  Greek,  overloading  his  style  with  Hebraisms 
which  he  does  not  find  in  his  model  ! 

6.  Finally,  we  call  attention  to  the  mixture  of  slavish  dependence  and  affected 
originality  which  would  characterize  the  text  of  Luke,  if  he  really  reproduced  the 
text  of  Mark.  Is  not  Gieseler  right  in  saying  :  "  And  despite  such  affectation,  this 
work  bears  a  seal  of  simplicity  and  of  the  absence  of  pretence,  which  strikes  every 
reader  !"  Another  source  has  been  spoken  of  as  used  .besides  Mark.  So  we  are 
brought  back  to  that  manufacturing  of  phrases  of  which  we  have  already  spoken. 
The  supposition  has  been  given  forth  that  Luke  used  the  previous  writing  entirely 
from  memory.  But  how  could  this  memory  be  at  once  so  tenacious  as  to  reproduce 
the  minutest  expressions  of  the  original  text  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  so  treacherous 
us  sometimes  to  alter  the  facts  so  seriously  ?  Here  there  would  be  an  intermitting  of 
uiemor}^  more  difficult  still  to  explain  than  the  iutermittence  of  the  style  to  support 
which  this  hypothesis  is  resorted  to. 

We  conclude  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark,  in  their  present  form  at  least,  figured 
among  the  sources  of  Luke.  Such,  besides,  is  the  conclusion  which  we  might  have 
drawn  from  his  prologue.  The  manner  in  which  he  contrasts  the  ■koaIoI  {many), 
compilers  of  i^revious  writings,  with  the  apostles  and  eye-witnesses  of  the  events,  for- 
bids us  to  rank  the  Apostle  Matthew  among  the  former  ;  so  that  if  he  shared  the  re- 
ceived opinion  which  ascribed  to  Matthew  the  first  Gospel,  he  cannot  have  ranked 
this  book  among  the  writings  of  which  bespeaks.  It  would  certaiuly  not  be  easier  to 
maintain  that,  in  a  heap  with  so  manj''  ephemeral  writings,  he  referred  to  such  an  im- 
portant work  as  that  of  Mark,  which  from  the  first  times  the  Church  (witness  Papias, 


COM.MKNTAIIV    OX    ST.   LUKE.  053 

Clement,  Irena?us)  signalized  and  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  precious  documents  re- 
garding the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

II. 

Tiiose  two  -vsriliiigs  being  set  aside,  ■what  then  are  the  sources  from  -vvliich  Luko 
lias  drawn  ? 

Criticism  has  sought  to  determine  the  sources  of  Luke,  either  from  certain  charac- 
teristics of  liis  slyle,  or  from  the  religious  tendencies  of  certain  parts,  or  from  the 
localities  which  form  the  .«icene  of  his  narrative. 

1.  Proceeding  from  the  first  pomt  of  view,  Schlciermachcr,  as  is  well  known,  broke 
up  our  Gospel  into  a  certain  number  of  detached  narratives,  which  the  hand  of  the 
compiler  bad  combined  in  sucb  a  way  as  to  form  tbem  into  a  cimsecutive  history. 
The  phrases  of  transition  which  we  have  indicated  throughout  our  Gospel  are  in  bis 
eyes  the  conclusions  of  those  short  writings  ;  they  do  not  belong,  according  to  him, 
to  the  general  compiler.  This  hypothesis  cannot  be  maintained  :  a.  Because  those 
forms  have  too  much  resemblance  not  to  be  from  the  same  hand.  Besides,  they  reap- 
pear in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts.  b.  The  unity  of  style  and  plan  proves  that  the 
evangelist  was  not  a  mere  collector.  Tiie  author,  no  doubt,  possessed  written  materials  ; 
but  be  used  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  work  them  into  a  homogeneous  Miiole.  As  to  the 
two  accounts  of  journeys  which  Scblciermacher  thinks  have  been  amalgamated  in  one 
in  the,  piece  9  :  51-19  :  27,  see  at  p.  287. 

2.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  great  Judeo-Cbristian  Gospel,  in  which 
Keim  finds  the  substance  of  the  greater  part  of  Luke's  Gospel.  But  as 
there  is  no  necessity  for  regarding  Luke's  narrative  as  sw^ayed  by  opposing 
religious  currents,  Keim's  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  with  the  fact  on  which  it 
was  based.  According  to  Hilgenfeld,  the  author  consulted  a  third  document  besides 
Matthew  and  Mark,  that  which  is  reproduced  in  a  modified  form  in  the  journal 
(9  :  51-19  ;  27).  But  if  this  piece  formed  one  wiiole  by  itself,  whence  comes  it  that, 
at  the  point  where  Luke's  account  rejoins  that  of  Matthew  and  ]\Iark  (18  :  15),  we 
find  not  the  least  sign  of  the  end  of  the  interpolated  piece  ?  Hilgenftld  ascribes  an 
altogether  peculiar  character  to  this  piece — the  austerity  of  the  Christian  life  ;  and  a 
special  aim — to  narrate  the  formation  of  a  circle  of  disciples  whose  work,  passing  be- 
3'ond  the  Jewish  domain,  was  to  form  a  prelude  to  that  of  Paul.  But  this  aim  enters 
into  the  progressive  movement  of  the  Avbole  book,  and  the  first  characteristic  referred 
to  belongs  to  the  entire  teaching  of  Jesus  (the  rich  j'ouug  man). 

3.  Kostlin  thinks  he  can  maintain  a  source  specially  Judean  for  the  events  which 
are  said  to  have  passed  in  Judea,  and  for  those  of  which  Sumaria  was  the  theatre,  or 
in  which  the  Samaritan  people  plaj'  a  part — a  Samaritan  source.  Keim  regards  this 
latter,  the  basis  of  the  account  of  the  journey  (9  :  51-18  :  27),  as  one  and  the  same 
work  with  the  document  which  furnishes  the  account  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  con- 
version of  a  Samaritan  population  (Acts  8).  As  well  might  we  speak  of  an  Abyssinian 
source  for  the  narrative  of  the  noble  belonging  to  the  court  of  Candace,  etc.  As  if  it 
Were  necessary  to  bring  local  interest  into  the  composition  of  such  a  history  !  For  a 
similar  rea.son,  Bleek  takes  Galilee  as  the  place  of  the  composition  of  his  original  Gos- 
pel—the principal  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  preponderance  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,  and  the  omission  of  the  journeys  to  Jerusalem,  in  this  fiuidamental  writing, 
arise  from  a  predilection  of  a  local  nature.  This  hypothesis  is  as  unsatisfactory. 
The  more  cle%'ated  the  sphere  of  a  narrative  is,  the  less  probable  is  it  that  the  place  of 


554  COMMEXTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

its  origin  dctennined  its  borizou.  This  is  not  the  time  to  occupy  ourselves  Tvilh 
other  alleged  sources  of  Luke,  to  the  suiiposilion  of  which  criticism  has  been  led  hy 
the  mysterious  relation  which  unites  our  three  synoptics,  expressly  the  priniilive 
3latthew  (or  Logia)  and  the  proto-Mark.  This  question  will  occur  when  we  come  to 
studj'  the  rclatiuus  between  the  synoptics. 

For  ourselves,  the  following  U  all  that  we  conclude  from  our  exegetical  study  : 
Ifit.  We  have  established  a  source  of  purely  Jewish  origin:  the  genealogical  docu- 
meut  3  :  23  fi  scq.  (see  the  exegesis).  2d.  From  1  :  o  we  have  found  ourselves  face  t.) 
face  with  an  account  of  a  wholly  Judeo-Chrislian  character,  both  in  substance,  see- 
ing it  renders  with  incomparable  freshness  the  impressions  of  the  first  actors  in  the 
Gospel  drama  ;  and  in  form,  lor  the  style  leapes  no  doubt  as  to  the  language  ia 
which  it  was  written.  This  piece  (chaps.  1  and  2),  the  Aramaic  character  of  which 
Luke  has  preserved  in  Greek  as  faithfully  as  possible,  may  have  been  a  detached  ac- 
count preserved  in  the  family  of  Jesus,  or  have  belonged  to  a  more  con,siderable 
Avhole,  one  of  the  works  spoken  of  by  Luke.  The  other  parts  of  the  Gospel,  all  of 
which,  cxce5)t  the  account  of  the  Passion,  betray  an  Aramaic  basis,  must  have  ema- 
nated also  from  the  Jndeo-Christian  Church.  We  shall  probably  never  know 
whether  those  pieces  were  taken  from  different  writings  or  borrowed  from  one  and 
the  same  work.  Sd.  The  parts  in  which  this  Hebrew  character  is  less  perceptible, 
in  matter  and  form,  have  probably  been  composed  in  Greek  on  the  basis  of  oral  nar- 
ratives, public  or  private.  Thus  the  account  of  the  Passion,  in  which  we  shall  find 
certain  classical  turns  of  expression  (23  :  12,  TrpovirTjpxov  ;  5  :  15,  iarl  TVFTrpa-y/xevnv  avrCJ ; 
5  :  18,  iraii-ATjOei),  if  it  is  not  the  work  of  Luke  himself,  might  be  laken  from  one  of  the 
Gospels  antecedent  to  Luke,  composed  in  Greek.  AiJt.  The  narrative  of  the  iustitu 
tion  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  certainly  of  Pauline  origin  ;  comp.  1  Cor.  11.  Was  this 
source  written  ?  Was  it,  perhaps,  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  ?  In  this  latter 
c;ise,  Luke  must  have  quoted  from  mcmorj',  as  seen  from  the  differences  between  the 
two  forms.  Or  was  it  purely  oral  ?  Luke,  having  often  celebrated  the  Holy  Supper 
with  Paul  (Acts  20),  might  have  retained  in  his  memory  more  or  less  literally  the 
formula  which  the  apostle  used  on  those  occasions.  Such  is  all  that  we  think  cau  be 
advanced  with  any  probability,  proceeding  upon  the  study  of  the  Gospel. 

II. — The  Bdaiioiis  and  Oriqin  of  the  Synoptics. 

We  shall  first  examine  the  systems  which  are  at  present  current ;  thereafter,  we 
shall  state  our  own  view. 

I. 

A.  Most  critics  are  now  agreed  on  this  point,  that  Uattheic  and  Mark  icere  not  de- 
pendent on  Luke.  No  doubt,  Bleek  traces  back  Mark  to  Matthew  a/irf /^?/A-^  ;  and, 
according  to  Volkmar,  Matthew  was  borrowed /?-o»i  Lnke  and  Mark.  But  those  opin- 
ions do  not  enjoy  anything  like  general  acceptance.  Bleek's  most  plausible  argument 
is  that  which  he  derives  from  certain  phrases  of  Mark,  in  which  the  text  of  the  oilier 
two  seems  to  be  combined.  But  if  Maik  was  such  a  close  copyist  as  to  place  side  bj^ 
side  two  phrases  identical  in  meaning,  that  he  might  not  lose  a  word  or  part  of  a 
phrase  belonging  to  the  text  of  his  predecessors,  how,  on  the  other  hand,  would  he 
reject  immense  pieces  from  their  works,  or  modify  it  in  so  serious  a  waj'  as  he  often 
does  ?    Tlie  phenomenon  which  has  misled  Bleek,  and  some  others  before  him,  arises 


rOMMENTAUY    ON    ST.    LLKE.  000 

simply  from  lh;it  somewhat  wordy  style  of  amplificiilion  ■which  churacterizes  ]\Iiirk, 
and  which  appears  throusjhout  his  wiiole  uarrativc.  As  to  Volkmar's  opinion,  it  con- 
tradicts two  obvious  facts  :  the  viirorous  originality  of  Matthew's  style,  ami  the  l)rev- 
ity  of  iiis  nanatives  in  conipaiison  with  Luke's.  As  an  example,  let  the  history  of 
tiie  centurion  at  Capernaum  be  taken,  in  which,  for  all  the  steps  adopted  by  him  to 
avoid  api)roachinii:  Jesus  personally,  and  even  to  prevent  Ills  coming  under  his  roof 
(in  Luke),  Matthew  substitutes  the  wr.rdi',  "  He  came  unto  Ilim,  beseeching  Ilim  ;" 
(-r  the  history  of  the  paralytic,  in  which  Matthew  would  be  made  to  borrow  from 
L\ike  the  words,  "  And  seeing  their  faith,"  after  having  suppressed  all  Ihecircum- 
^1anres  to  which  this  expression  refers  !  All  this  proves  nothing,  I  know,  to  a  mau 
like  Volkmar,  who  thinks  that  the  evangelists  manipulate  their  materials  according  to 
lliclr  caprice.  IIow  could  the  first  evangelist  have  arbitratily  created  Ins  great  dis- 
courses by  means  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  scattered  throughout  Luke  ?  Such  pro- 
cedure is  as  inadmissible  as  the  didocntion  which  others  ascribe  to  Luke. 

B.  Luke  being  disposed  of,  the  only  possible  question  regarding  the  origin  of  Mark 
and  ]\Iatlhew  is  this,  Does  the  one  depend  on  the  other?  The  general  plan  in  both  is 
very  similar)  the  cr)ntrast  between  the  Galilean  ministry  and  the  sojourn  at  Jerusa- 
lem). Between  those  two  parts  there  is  also  found  in  both  writings  a  very  brief  ac- 
count of  the  journey  through  Perea.  The  order  of  the  narratives  is  almost  identical 
from  the  convirsation  at  Cesurea  Philippi  ;  there  are  more  cousideiablc  differences  in 
the  first  part  of  the  Ualilean  ministrj^  but  the  cause  of  them  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  omitted  by  Mark,  is  prefixed  to  it  in 
Matthew.  Finally,  at  every  moment  Ave  meet  with  identical  or  similar  phrases  in  both 
Gospels. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  Mark  used  Mattheio,  Vf  hence  comes  it  that,  besides  those 
identical  phrases,  we  have  continual  differences  which,  on  the  supposition  of  a  text 
being  before  him,  assume  by  their  very  insignticance  an  intolerable  character  of  toy- 
ing and  affectation  of  originality  ?  "Whence  come  those  differences  in  respect  of  mat- 
ter, partly  mutilations,  partly  amplifications,  sometimes  insoluble  or  apparent  contra- 
dictions ?  As  when  ]\rark  makes  Jesus  say,  "  Nothing,  srt7)c  sandals;"  where  3Iat- 
thew  says,.  "  Take  nothing,  not  even  sandals."  So  when,  in  the  narrative  of  the  ex- 
pulsion of  the  sellers  from  the  temple,  and  in  that  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  Mark  places 
those  events  on  a  different  day  from  that  on  which  they  transpired  according  to  ]Mat- 
thew.  So  in  the  account  of  the  calling  of  IMatthew,  where 3Iark,  on  tiiis  supposition, 
substitutes  for  the  person  of  the  apostle  an  unknoM-n  personage  named  Levi,  without 
making  tlie  slightest  allusion  to  the  name  of  Matthew,  which  the  first  Gosj)el  gives  to 
this  publican  ;  then,  in  the  cures  of  the  demoniac,  and  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho,  in 
which  >Iark  mentions  only  one  sufferer  instead  of  the  two  spoken  of  by  his  model  ? 
Klostermann's  opinion,  which  makes  jMatfhew's  account  the  text  on  wliich  jMark  en- 
grafted the  descriptive  glosses  which  he  received  from  Peter,  likewise  falls  to  the 
ground  before  the  difficulties  mentioned. 

Or  was  it  Matthew  v>ho  vsed  Mark  ?  But  Matthew's  method  is  wholly  original  and 
independent  of  Mark's.  He  loves  to  group  homogeneous  events  round  a  prophetic 
text.     This  organic  principle  is  in  keeping  with  the  fundamental  view  of  his  Gospel.* 

*  After  a  general  prophecy,  given  as  the  l)nsis  of  the  entire  narrative  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  (4  :  14-1()),  there  follow  :  1.  'I'lie  Sermon  on  the  .Mount  ;  2.  A  culleclion 
of  deeds  of  power  (chaps.  8  and  D).  grouped  rrjiind  the  prnphec}- i  f  Isaiah,  (piotcd 
8  :  17  ;  o.  The  instructions  to  the  Twelve,  chap.  10  ;  4.  A  collection  of  the  utlejauces 


OoC  COM-MEXTAUY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

It  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  order  followed  by  Mark.  Then,  in  most  cases, 
we  should  lie  forced  to  tliiuk  that  he  made  it  his  business  to  spoil  the  narratives  of  his 
model  ;  so  in  the  cure  of  the  paralytic,  in  that  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho,  and  par- 
ticularly in  that  of  the  lunatic  sou.  Wh}^  besides,  omit  tlie  names  of  the  four  dis- 
ciples in  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  the  apostles  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Mark  13;  1 
Why,  in  relating  the  preparation  for  the  Passover,  say,  He  sent  His  disciples,  as  if  it 
was  all  of  them,  while  his  predecessor  expressly  said,  two  of  His  disciples?  Why 
omit  in  the  pra^'er  of  Gethsemane  those  beautiful  words  preserved  by  Mark, 
"  Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  Thee,"  etc.,  etc. 

In  fine,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  anything  more  capricious  and  less  reverential 
than  the  part  which  we  make  the  author  of  any  one  whatever  of  our  synoptic  Gospels 
play,  with  the  hist  iry  and  sayings  of  Jesus,  supposing  that  he  had  before  him  the 
other  two,  or  one  of  them.  Such  an  explanation  will  only  be  allowable  when  we  are 
brought  absolutely  to  despair  of  finding  any  other.  And  even  then  it  were  better  still 
to  say,  Non  liquet.  Fur  this  explanation  involves  a  moral  contradiction.  Most  of  our 
present  critics  are  so  well  aware  of  this,  that  they  have  recourse  to  middle  terms. 
By  common  sources  they  seek  to  explain  the  relation  between  those  three  writings,  or 
they  combine  this  mode  with  the  preceding.  We  have  already  described  in  our  in- 
troduction the  numerous  systems  of  this  kind  which  are  proposed  at  the  present  day. 

C.  TAeek  derivesMiiilhGw  and  hukc  from  a  GreeJc  Gos})el,  composed  in  Galilee.  Tliis 
hypothesis  appears  to  us  as  unfiuittul  as  those  which  derive  them  from  one  another. 
Take,  for  example,  the  I^ord's  Prayer.  A  common  text,  whence  the  two  evangelists 
derived  the  terms  of  this  formulary  which  both  have  transmitted  to  us,  is  not  less  in- 
conceivable than  the  dr-riving  of  one  of  those  reports  from  the  ether,  unless  we  ascribe 
to  either  of  them  an  incredible  degree  of  arbitrariness  in  regard  to  a  most  solemn  ut- 
terance of  the  Master.  And  the  same  phenomenon  reappears  from  beginning  to  end 
of  our  two  Gospels  !  Besides,  the  prologue  of  Luke  protests  against  Bleek's  explana- 
tion. Luke  speaks  of  many  Gospel  narratives  which  were  in  existence  at  the  time 
when  he  wrote.  Bleek's  hypothesis  supposes  only  one.  To  escape  from  his  diffi- 
culty, this  critic  reduces  the  many  writings  of  which  Luke  speaks  to  simple  revisions 
of  that  original  Gospel  ;  but  Luke  evidently  understood  by  those  many  writings  not 
rehandlings  of  one  and  the  same  fundamental  work,  but  different  and  independent 
compilations  of  apostolic  tradition. 

The  hypothesis  most  in  favor  in  these  last  times  is  one  which,  recognizing  the 
originality  of  Mark,  places  him  at  the  head  of  the  Gospel  historiography,  so  far  at 
least  as  the  narrative  part  is  concerned,  but  in  an  older  form  :  the  so-called  p)'oto- 
Mark,  the  common  source  of  our  three  synoptics.  Moreover,  a  second  source  was  used 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  :  the  collection  of  discourses,  the  Logia  of  Matthew.  Holtz- 
mann  has  developed  this  hypothesis  in  a  work  which  is  one  of  the  finest  fruits  of  criti- 
cal research  in  our  century.  Let  us  examine  those  two  hypotheses  of  the  Logia  and 
the  2)roto-^Iark. 

That  there  existed  a  collection  of  discourses  written  by  the  Apostle  Matthew,  which 
was  one  of  the  oldest  Gospel  documents,  we  have  not  the  least  doubt.  The  ground 
of  our  conviction  is  not  so  much  the  testimony  of  Papias,  of  which  Gieseler  rightly 

of  wisdom  (chaps.  11  and  12),  grouped  round  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  quoted  12  :  17  ; 
■6.  The  parables  of  the  kingdom,  chap.  13  ;  6.  A  series  of  excursions  to  tlie  east,  noith, 
and  north-east,  filling  up  the  prophetic  programme  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  the  Gal- 
ilean ministry. 


commi:ntauv  ox  st.  llive.  557 

says  :  '•  Scparnted  as  this  notice  appears  from  ila  context,  it  is  difTicult  to  draw  from 
it  any  certain  conclusion  ;"  it  is  ratlier  llie  form  of  our  lirst  Gospel  itself  in  wliich  wc 
meet  with  great  bodies  of  discourses  distiibuled  at  certain  points  of  the  narrative,  and 
which  appear  to  have  existed  uk  taich  uutecedenlly  to  the  work  in  which  tliey  are  in- 
serted. It  is  dillicull  to  avoid  tlie  impression  that  those  bodies  of  discourses  original- 
ly formed  one  whole.  Wei/.siicker  has,  with  a  master  hand,  as  it  appears  to  ua.  traced 
the  plan  of  this  original  .Matthew  ((ip.  Ia4-1HG).  The  apostolic  treatise  opened  willi 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ;  it  was  the  invitation  to  enter  into  the  kingdom,  tlie  foun- 
dation of  llie  cdiUcc.  There  followed  as  the  second  pait  of  the  collection,  llie  dis- 
courses addressed  to  particular  persons,  such  as  the  instructions  given  to  the  apostles 
(Matt.  10),  the  testimony  regarding  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  11),  and  the  great  apolo- 
getic discourse  (.Matt.  12).  Finally,  tlie  cschatological  prophecy  (Matt.  24  :  25)  consti- 
tuted the  third  part  ;  it  formed  the  climax  of  the  collection,  the  delineation  of  the 
liopes  of  the  Church.  The  other  groups  of  instructions,  the  collection  of  parables 
(chap.  13),  the  discourse  on  the  duties  of  the  disciples  to  one  another  and  on  disci- 
phne  (chap.  18),  formed,  according  to  Weizsiicker,  an  appendix  coiresponding  to  cer- 
tain practical  wants  of  the  Church.  We  would  introduce  some  modifications  into  this 
reconstruction  of  the  Lof/'a  as  proposed  by  Weizsiicker.*  But  this  matters  li'tle  to 
the  question  before  us  ;  the  main  thing  is  that  such  a  work  existed,  and  very  nearly 
as  conceived  by  Weizsilclier.  Iloltzmann  thinks,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  rather  appeared  in  the  Logia  in  the  form  in  which  we  lind  them  in  Luke's  nar- 
rative of  the  journey  (9  :  18)  ;  it  was  the  author  of  our  first  Gospel,  according  to  him, 
who  grouped  them  into  systematic  discourses. 

We  shall  begin  by  criticising  this  second  view.  1.  It  seems  to  us  impossible,  as 
we  have  already  remarked  in  opposition  to  Volkmar,  that  the  author  of  a  historical 
work,  such  as  our  canonical  Matthew,  took  the  liberty  of  gathering  intoceitain  largo 
masses  sayings  uttered  in  different  circumstances,  to  form  so-called  discourses  of 
which  he  might  say  they  were  uttered  by  Jesus  at  this  or  that  time.  2.  Holtzmann's 
liypotiiesis  is  opposed  by  the  unanimous  conviction  of  the  Church,  which  from  the 
beginning  has  attached  the  name  of  Matthew  to  our  first  Gospel.  According  to  this 
view  it  would  really  be  the  Gospel  of  Luke  which  had  preserved  the  Jj)f/iit.  in 
their  true  form,  and  which  ought  to  have  inherited  the  name  of  the  Apostle  Matthew. 
B3'  attaching  to  our  first  gospel  the  name  of  3Iatthew,  the  Church  has  shown,  on  tlie 
contrary,  that  it  was  this  work  which  was  the  depositary  of  the  treasure  bequeathed 
to  the  world  by  this  apostle.  3.  The  strongcf^^l  objection  to  the  use  of  the  l.orjia 
b}"  our  two  evangelists  is  always,  in  our  view,  the  wholly  different  terms  in  which 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  conveyed  in  the  two  recensions.  One  (■op/<'.'<  discourses  if  he 
believes  in  them  ;  one  invents  them  if  he  does  not.     The  supposed  middle  waj',  three 

*  Instead  of  making  the  collection  of  the  parables  an  appendix,  we  should  make 
it  tlie  centre  of  tlie  work.  The  Logia  of  Matthew,  that  collection  intended  to  repro- 
duce our  Lord's  teaching  in  its  essential  cjiaracteristics,  opened,  wc  should  say,  with 
the  exposition  of  the  Tighteousnesn  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  the  Sermnn  on  the 
Mount.  There  followed  the  description  of  the  dcvelopmciii  of  that  kingdom,  in  the 
collecticm  of  the  parables  (3Iatt.  I'd)  ;  finally,  the  great  cschatological  discourse,  IVIatt. 
24  and  25  announcing  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom,  was  the  rope-stone  of  Ihe 
edifice.  Between  those  principal  parts  there  were  placed,  like  passages  i)etw('i'ii  the 
apartments  properly  so  called,  certain  subordinate  instructions,  such  as  the  discourse 
on  John  the  Baptist,  on  the  casting  out  of  devils,  and  vu.  discipline  in  the  Chuich 
(.Matt.  11  :  12,  and  18). 


558  COMMENTARY   0]Sr    ST.   LUKE, 

words  of  copy,  three  words  of  invention,  seems  to  us  un  impossibility.  ^lo  duuhl  it 
miglit  be  asserted  that  each  author  combined  with  the  use  of  the  common  source  (the 
"  Logia")  that  of  different  particular  sources.  But  what  an  impossible  procedure  is 
that  wliich  we  thereby  reach  !  Three  words  borrowed  from  the  common  souice, 
llu-ee  from  one  or  other  of  the  special  snurces,  and  this  for  the  compoailion  of  every 
phrase  !     Wliat  a  mosaic  !     What  an  amalgam  ! 

Can  we,  en  the  other  hand,  adopt  the  opinion  of  Weizsaclcer?  Were  the  great 
discouists  of  the  "  Lcgia,"  as  preserved  intact  by  Matthew,  the  source  at  the  same 
ti:ii3  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  as  reported  by  Luke?  No.  For:  1.  We  cannot 
admit  that  Luke  at  his  own  hand  displaced  Ihose  great  discourses.  2.  This  supposi- 
tion is  rendeied  untenable  by  all  the  proofs  which  our  exegesis  has  supplied  of  the 
tiuth  of  the  historical  prefaces  which  introduce  the  declarations  reported  by  Luke.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  conceive  a  procedure  more  recklessly  arbitrary  than  that 
which  Weizsiicker  ascribes  to  this  author,  when  he  makes  him  invent  situations  for 
discourses,  discourses  which  he  began  by  carving  out  of  the  "Logia"  at  pleasure. 
3.  This  arbitrariness  would  reach  its  height  in  the  invention  of  the  narrative  of  the 
journey,  9  :  51-18  :  27.  This  journey,  according  to  this  view,  was  out  and  out  a 
ticliou  of  the  writer,  intended  to  serve  as  a  framework  for  all  the  materials  which 
remained  unused.  What  would  be  thought  of  a  writer  who  should  act  in  this  way 
after  having  declared  that  he  would  seek  to  relate  all  things  exactly  and  in  order  ? 

The  work  of  the  "  Logia"  then  existed,  and  we  think  that  it  may  be  found  entire 
in  our  first  Gospel.  But  it  is  not  thence  that  Luke  has  drawn  our  Lord's  discourses. 
And  this  result  is  confirmed  by  Luke's  own  declaration,  from  which  it  appears  that, 
among  the  gospel  works  which  had  preceded  his  own,  he  found  none  proceeding 
from  an  apostle. 

In  regard  to  the  second  source,  that  from  which  the  materials  of  the  7iarratwe  com- 
mon to  our  three  synoptics  is  said  to  have  been  derived,  the  proto-Mark,  not  only  do 
we  deny  that  our  three  synoptics  can  be  explained  by  such  a  work,  but  we  do  not 
l)elieve  that  it  ever  existed.  1.  Eusebius,  who  knew  the  work  of  Papias,  some  lines  of 
which  have  given  rise  to  the  hypothesis  of  an  original  Mark,  distinct  from  ours, 
never  suspected  such  a  difference  ;  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he  had  no  hesitation 
in  applying  the  testimony  of  Papias  to  our  canonical  Mark.  2.  If  there  had  existed 
a  gospel  treatise  enjoying  such  authority  that  our  first  three  evangelists  took  from  it 
the  framework' and  the  essential  materials  of  their  narrative,  Luke  certainly  could 
not,  as  he  does  in  his  prologue,  put  the  writings  anterior  to  his  own  in  one  and  the 
same  category,  and  place  them  all  a  degree  lower  than  the  narrative  which  he  pro- 
posed to  write.  He  must  have  mentioned  in  a  special  manner  a  document  of  such 
importance.  3.  Neither  tiie  special  plan  of  each  of  our  synoptics,  nor  the  transpo- 
sitions of  histories,  nor  the  differences  more  or  less  considerable  which  appeared  in 
the  details  of  each  narrative,  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  the  supposition  cf  this 
unique  and  common  source.  Compare  only  the  three  accounts  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  or  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho  (see  tire  exegesis)  I  And  as  to  the  discourses, 
those  at  least  which  are  derived  from  the  proto-Mark,  take  a  synopsis  and  attempt  to 
explain  the  three  texts  by  a  common  document,  and  the  levity  or  puerility  wiiich 
must  be  ascribed  now  to  the  one  and  again  to  the  other  of  our  three  evangelists,  to 
make  them  draw  from  one  and  the  same  document,  will  be  fully  apparent  !  See,  for 
example,  the  saying  on  the  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  (Luke  12  ;  10  and  paral!.)-  In 
most  cases  IToltzmann  enumerates  the  differences,  and  he  images  that  he  has  ex- 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST,   LUKE.  559 

plained  llicm  !  4.  The  decisive^ argument  seems  to  us  lo  be  that  v/liich  is  founded 
on  the  style  of  the  three  gospels.  As  Weiss  suys,  "  A  writing  so  haruioiiiously  and 
vigorously  composed  as  our  first  gospel  cannot  be  an  extract  from  another  writnig." 
In  no  case  could  it  proceed  from  a  writing  the  literary  stamp  of  ■which  had  the  least 
resemblance  to  that  of  ^lark.  And  Luke?  Once  more,  it  ^You]d  be  he  who  had 
taken  a  fancy  to  introduce  into  the  text  of  the  proto-!Mark  those  so  pronounced  Ara- 
maisms  which  distinguish  his  gospel  from  the  other  two  !  From  this  prolo-^Iark 
from  which  Matthew  derived  good  Greek  for  Hebrews,  Luke  took  Ikbraised  Greek 
for  Greeks  !  The  proto-Mark  is  a  hypothesis  which  cannot  be  substantiated  either  in 
point  of  fact  or  in  point  of  right ;  fur  were  there  really  such  a  writing,  it  would 
nevertheless  be  incapable  of  diing  the  service  for  ciiticism  which  it  expects  from  it, 
that  is,  supply  the  solution  of  the  enigma  of  the  synoptics.  Besides,  the  last  authors 
who  have  written  en  the  subject,  ^Veiss,  Klostermami,  Volkmar,  though  starting 
from  the  most  opposite  standpoints,  agree  in  treating  this  writing,  which  Schieier- 
macber  introduced  into  criticism,  as  a  chimera. 

But  what  docs  "Weiss  do  ?  I'emainiug  attached  to  the  idea  of  a  written  source  as 
the  basis  of  our  canonical  gcspels,  he  ascribes  to  the  original  ]\Iatlhew  tlie  "  Logia," 
the  part  which  he  refuses  to  the  proto-jMaik.  Oul}"  he  is  thereby  obliged  to  assign 
hi-^torical,  and  not  merely  didactic,  contents  to  this  writing.  No  doubt  he  does  not 
regard  it  as  a  complete  gospel  ;  he  thinks  that  it  contained  neither  the  records  of  the 
infancy,  nor  those  of  the  passion  and  resurrection.  The  book  of  the  "  Logia"  began, 
according  to  him,  with  the  baptism  ;  its  contents  were  made  up  of  detached  narra- 
tives and  discourses  ;  it  closed  with  the  account  of  the  feast  of  Bethany.  Thereat ter 
came  Mark,  who  labored  under  the  guidance  of  this  apostolic  Matthew,  and  first 
gave  the  gospel  narrative  its  ctmiplete  framework  ;  and  those  two  writings,  the 
"  Logia  '  and  JSIark,  became  the  common  sources  of  our  canonical  Matthew  and  Luke 
But,  1.  If  Weiss  justly  complains  that  he  cannot  form  a  clear  idea  of  the  book  of  the 
"  Logia"  as  it  is  represented  by  Iloltzmanu  (a  writing  beginning  with  the  testimony 
of  Jesus  regarding  John  the  Baptist,  and  closing  with  a  collection  of  parables),  why 
not  appl}-  the  same  judgment  to  the  apostolic  Matthew  of  "Weiss  ?  What  is  a  book 
beginning  with  the  baptism  and  ending  with  the  feast  of  Bethany,  if  it  is  not,  to  the 
letter,  a  writing  without  cither  head  or  tail?  2.  Would  it  not  be  strange  if  Mark, 
the  work  which  tradition  declares  by  the  mouth  of  Papias  to  be  destitute  of  histori- 
cal order,  were  precisely  that  which  had  furnished  the  type  of  the  historical  order 
followed  by  our  synoptics  ?  8.  It  follows  from  the  prologue,  1  :  1-4,  that  when 
Luke  wrote,  he  had  not  yet  before  him  any  work  written  by  an  apostle  ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  Weiss,  he  must  have  had  the  apostolic  Matthew  in  his  hands.  4.  "While 
rendering  all  justice  to  the  perspicacity  and  accuracy  displayed  by  Weiss  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  texts  one  is  nevertheless  painfully  afTected  with  the  arbitrariness  belonging  t  •> 
such  a  criticism.  It  ahvays  comes  in  the  end  to  this,  to  educe  the  dissimilar  from  the 
same.  For  this  end  it  must  be  held,  unless  one  is  willing  to  throw  himself  into  the 
system  of  wilful  and  deliberate  alterations  (Baur),  that  the  acts  and  sayings  of  Jesus 
were  an  elastic  material  in  the  bands  of  the  evangelists,  a  sort  of  India  rubber  which 
each  of  them  stretched,  lengthened,  contracted,  and  shaped  at  pleasure.  Will  a 
supposition  which  is  morally  impossible  ever  lead  to  a  satisfactory  result  ?  The  last 
step  to  be  taken  on  this  view  was  to  assign  to  the  "  Logia"  of  3Iatthew  the  totality 
of  the  gospel  narrative  ;  this  is  what  Klostermaua  has  done  ;  and  so  wc  arc  brouglit 


560  COMMEXTAKY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

back  to  the  hypothesis  which  malies  our  Matthew,  or  a  writing  perfectly  similar,  the 
priucipal  source  oi'  the  other  two  synoptics. 

HoKzinann  consoles  himself  for  the  little  agreement  obtained  by  all  this  labor  up 
till  now,  by  saying  that  this  immense  labor,  reaching  nearly  over  a  century,  cannot 
remain  without  fruit.  But  on  a  mistaken  route  it  is  possible  to  perform  prodiiiies  of 
agility,  to  take  marvellous  leaps,  to  make  forced  marches,  without  advancing  a  step 
toward  the  goal,  because  the  direction  is  perverse.  Such  appears  to  us  to  be  the 
condition  in  which  criticism  has  labored  so  energetically.  Far,  then,  from  seeking 
still  to  advance  like  Weiss*  in  this  diiection,  the  time  seems  to  us  to  have  come  for 
retracing  our  steps,  la  order  to  recover  the  way  which  Luke  himself  indicated,  and 
which  Gieseler  brought  to  light.  True,  the  attempt  made  by  this  eminent  historian 
has  not  been  followed  ;  but  rather  than  turn  away  from  it  with  disdain,  criticism 
should  have  sought  to  supply  what  in  it  was  defective.  This  is  what  we  shall  at- 
tempt to  do. 

II. 

If,  in  the  systems  which  we  have  passed  in  review,  the  difficulty  is  to  reconcile 
the  differences  between  our  gospels  with  the  use  of  common  written  sources,  or  with 
the  dependence  which  they  must  be  supposed  to  have  on  one  another,  the  diffi cully 
for  us  will  be  to  explain,  without  such  dependence  and  without  such  a  use,  tiie 
resemblances  which  in  so  many  respects  make  those  three  writings,  as  it  were,  one 
and  the  same  work  :  resemblance  in  the  plan  (omission  of  the  journeys  to  Jerusalem), 
resemblance  in  the  sequence  of  the  narratives  (identical  cj^cles)  ;  resemblance  in  the 
matter  of  the  narratives  ;  resemblance  sometimes  even  in  details  of  style.  To  solve 
the  problem,  let  us  begin  by  ascending  to  the  source  of  this  river,  with  its  three 
branches. 

After  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  it  was  necessary  to 
labor  to  nourish  those  thousands  of  souls  w'ho  had  entered  into  the  new  life.  Among 
the  means  enumerated  in  the  Acts  which  served  to  edify  the  new-born  Church,  the 
apostles'  doctrine  (3  :  43)  stands  in  the  first  place.  What  does  this  term  mean  ?  It 
could  not  sutfice  to  repeat  daily  to  the  same  persons  that  proclamation  of  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  our  Lord  whereby  Peter  had  founded  the  Church.  It  must  soon 
have  been  necessary  to  go  back  on  the  narrative  of  Jesus'  ministry.  But  the  expres- 
sion, apostles'  doctrine,  shows  that  those  opal  narratives  did  not  bear  simply  on  the 
acts  and  miracles  of  Jesus,  but  also,  and  even  specially,  on  His  teacliings.  Before 
Paul  and  John  had  set  forth  our  Lord  Himself  as  the  essence  of  the  Gospel,  the  apos- 
tles' doctrine  could  not  well  be  anything  else  than  the  reproduction  and  application 
of  the  Master's  discourses.  One  day,  therefore,  it  was  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ; 
another,  the  discourse  on  the  relations  between  believers  (Matt.  18)  ;  a  third,  the  es- 
chatological  discourse,  by  means  of  which  the  community  of  the  faithful  was  edified. 
It  was  repeated,  and  then  commented  on.  With  the  exception  of  John,  the  Twelve 
probably  never  passed  beyond  this  elementary  sphere  of  Christian  teaching.  It  was 
still  within  this  that  Peter  moved  in  his  instructions  {^ifiaanaMaC)  as  he  travelled,  and 
at  Rome,  at  the  time  of  which  Papias  speaks,  and  when  Mark,  his  interpreter,  ac- 
companied him  collecting  his  narratives.  And  was  it  not,  indeed,  with  a  view  to  this 
special  task  of  "  testifying  what  they  had  seen  and  heard,"  that  Jesus  had  chosen  and 

*  "  Das  Marcus-Evangelium  und  seine  syn.  Parallelen,"  1873. 


C'OM.MKNTAllV    ON    ST.    LLKK.  ."iCL 

formeil  tlie  Twelve  ?  Nor  were  they  slow  to  abandon  the  other  duties  with  which 
thoy  were  at  first  charged,  sucli  as  the  acrring  of  (he  common  tables,  in  order  to  devote 
llieniselves  exclusively  to  this  work  (Acts  G). 

The  rich  inaleiiala  for  those  recitals  (John  21  :  24,  25)  must  at  an  early  period  have 
become  contracted  and  oonctntrated,  both  as  regards  the  discourses  and  the  facts. 
In  resjKct  to  tiie  latter,  for  each  category'  of  miracles  the  attention  was  given  pre- 
ferentially' to  one  or  two  peculiarly  prominent  examples.  In  respect  to  the  discourses, 
as  tliese  were  reproduced  not  in  a  historical  interest,  but  with  a  view  to  the  edification 
of  believers,  the  apostolic  exposition  gradually  fastened  on  some  specially  important 
points  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  such  as  those  of  the  Sermon  on  the  IMount,  of  the 
sending  of  the  Twelve,  of  the  announcement  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  to 
llie  subjects  which  Jesus  had  treated  of  on  those  occasions,  and  with  which  they  con- 
nected without  scruple  the  most  salient  of  the  other  teachings  of  Jesus  of  a  kindred 
sort.     It  was  a  matter  of  salvation,  not  of  chronology. 

They  likewise  became  accustomed,  in  those  daily  instructions,  to  connect  certain 
narratives  with  one  another  which  had  some  intrinsic  analogy  as  a  bond  of  union 
(Sabbatic  scenes,  aspirants  to  the  divine  kingdom,  groups  of  parables),  or  a  real  his- 
torical succession  (the  storm,  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  Jairus,  etc.).  Thus  there  were 
formed  cycles  of  narratives  more  or  less  fixed  which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  relat- 
ing at  one  stretch  ;  some  cycles  united  together  became  groups,  traces  of  which  we 
find  in  our  synoptics,  and  which  Ijachmann,  in  his  interesting  essay  on  the  subject 
("  Suid.  u.  Critik. "  18oo),  has  called  co?yvscuIa  evnnf/elicce  Jnstonw  ;  for  example,  the 
group  of  the  Messianic  advent  (the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  baptism  and 
temptation  of  Jesus)  ;  that  of  the  first  days  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  (His  teachings 
and  miracles  at  Capernaum  and  the  neighborhood)  ;  that  of  the  first  evangelistic  jour- 
nej's,  then  of  the  more  remote  excursions  ;  that  of  the  last  days  of  IIis  ministry  in 
Galilee  ;  that  of  the  journey  through  Perea  ;  thai  of  the  sojourn  at  Jerusalem.  The 
order  of  particular  narratives  within  the  cycle,  or  of  cycles  within  the  group,  might 
easily  be  transposed  ;  a  narrative  could  not  so  easily  pass  from  one  cycle  to  another, 
or  a  cycle  from  one  group  into  another. 

In  this  process  of  natural  and  spontaneous  elaboration,  all  in  the  interest  of  prac- 
tical wants,  the  treatment  of  the  Gospel  must  have  imperceptibly  taken,  even  down 
to  details  of  expression,  a  very  fixed  form.  In  the  narrative  parts,  the  holiness  of  the 
subject  excluded  all  ornamentation  and  refinement.  The  form  uf  the  narrative  was 
simple,  like  thr.tof  a  garment  which  exactly  fits  the  body.  In  such  circumstances, 
the  narrative  of  facts  passed  uninjured  through  various  mouths  ;  it  preserved  the  gen- 
eral stamp  which  it  had  received  when  it  was  first  put  into  form  by  the  competent 
witness.  A  little  more  liberty  was  allowed  in  regard  to  the  historical  framework  ; 
but,  in  repeating  the  words  of  Jesus,  which  formed  the  prominent  feature  in  every 
narrative,  the  received  form  was  absolutely  adhered  to.  The  jewel  remained  un- 
changeable ;  the  frame  varied  more.  The  reproduction  cf  the  discourses  was  more 
exposed  to  involuntary  alterations.  But  precisely  here  the  memory  of  the  apostles 
had  powerful  helps  ;  above  all,  the  striking  original  plastic  character  of  the  sayings 
of  Jesus.  There  are  discourses  which  one  might  hear  ten  times  williout  remcmbeiiug 
a  single  phrase  verbally.  There  are  others  which  leave  a  certain  number  of  sentences 
indelibly  impressed  on  the  mind,  and  which  ten  hearers  would  repeat,  many  days 
after,  almost  identically.  Everything  depends  on  the  way  in  which  the  thoughls  are 
conceived  and  expressed.     Formed  within  the  depths  of  His  soul,  the  words  of  Jesus 


5G2  COMxMEXTAllY    OX    ST.   LUKE. 

received  under  the  government  of  a  powerful  concentration  that  settled,  finished,  per- 
fect impress  by  means  of  which  they  became  stereotyped,  as  it  were,  on  the  minds  df 
His  heaters.  Tliis  sort  of  eloquence,  besides,  took  possession  of  the  whole  man  ;  of 
conscience,  by  its  moral  tiulli  ;  of  the  understaudinir,  by  the  precision  of  the  idea  ;  of 
the  heait,  b}'  the  liveliness  of  feeling  ;  of  the  imagination,  l)y  the  lichness  of  its  col- 
oi  ing  ;  and  what  the  whole  man  has  received,  he  retains  easily  and  faithfully.  Finally, 
I'.ie  apostles  were,  convinced  of  the  transcendent  value  of  the  things  which  they  heard 
from  His  mouth  ;  Jes\is  Himself  did  not  allow  thtm  to  forget  it.  They  knew  that 
lliey  were  called  soon  to  proclaim  from  the  house-tops  what  was  said  to  them  in  th« 
car.  They  had  not  heard  the  warning  in  vain  :  "  Take  heed  how  ye  hear."  They 
conversed  daily  regarding  all  that  they  heard  together  ;  and,  even  during  the  lifetime 
of  their  Master,  a  common  tradition  was  forming  among  them.  Th(.ise  sentences 
standing  out  in  such  pure  and  marked  relief  graven  upon  them  by  frequent  repe- 
tition, needed  only  an  external  call  to  be  drawn  forth  from  their  mind  in  their  native 
beauty,  and  to  be  produced  almost  as  they  had  received  them.  Indeed,  I  cannot 
conceal  my  astonishment  that  so  great  a  ditHeully  should  have  been  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  sayings  of  tTesus  are  almost  identically  reproduced  in  our  Gospels.  The 
differences  surprise  me  much  more  than  the  resemblances.  The  source  of  this  fixed- 
ness is  neither  Luke  copying  Matthew,  nor  Matthew  copying  Luke.  It  is  the  power- 
ful spirit  of  a  ^Master  like  Jesus  taking  possession  of  the  minds  of  simple,  calm,  and 
teachable  disciples  like  the  apostles.  This  was  precisely  the  result  aimed  at  by  that 
order  of  providence  whereby  His  Father  had  brought  to  Him  as  disciples,  not  the 
scribes  and  the  learned  of  the  capital,  but  little  children,  new  bottles,  iabuke  rciftm. 

In  the  first  times,  evangelization  was  carried  forward  in  Aramaic,  the  language  of 
the  people  and  of  the  apostles.  And  the  poverty  of  this  language,  both  in  syntactical 
forms  aud  in  its  vocabulary^  also  contributed  to  the  fixity  of  the  form  which  tradition 
took.  But  there  was,  even  at  Jerusalem,  a  numerous  Jewish  population  which  spoke 
only  Greek — the  Hellenistic  Jews.  They  possessed  in  the  capital  some  hundreds  of 
synagogues,  where  the  Old  Testament  was  kuown  only  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX. 
From  the  time  when  the  Church  welcomed  Jews  of  this  class — and  that  was  from  its 
cradle,  as  is  proved  by  the  narrative  Acts  6 — the  need  of  reproducing  in  Greek  the 
apostolic  system  of  evangelization  must  have  made  itself  imperiously  felt.  This  work 
of  translation  was  difficult  and  delicate,  especially  as  regarded  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 
It  was  not  done  at  random  ;  those  of  the  apostles  who  knew  Greek,  such  as  Andrew, 
Philip  (.John  12),  and  no  doubt  Matthew,  did  not  fail  to  engage  in  it.  There  were 
especially  certam  expressions  difficult  to  render,  for  which  the  corresponding  Greek 
term  required  to  be  carefully  selected.  Once  found  and  adopted,  the  Greek  expres- 
sion became  fixed  and  permanent  ;  so  the  words  iirinvnioi  (daily)  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
and  TTTcpvyiov  [jjinnade)  in  the  narrative  of  the  temptation — expressions  which  have 
been  wrongly  quoted  to  prove  the  mutual  dependence  of  our  Gospels  on  a  common 
written  source.*  From  this  Greek  mould  into  which  the  primitive  tradition  was 
cast,  it  could  not  but  come  forth  with  a  more  fixed  character  still  than  it  already  pos- 
sessed in  Aramaic. 

It  maintained  itself,  no  doubt,  for  some  time  in  this  purely  oral  form,  Aramaic  and 

*  Holtzmann  also  adduces,  in  opposition  to  me,  the  verb  with  its  double  augment 
aTTEnareaTdOT],  used  in  the  three  synoptics.  But  the  various  reading  u-dKaTenrd'.ij]  '\-i 
found  in  the  three  texts,  and  usage  might  have  consecrated  this  form  with  the  double 
augment,  as  in  some  other  verbs. 


COMMENTARY    OX    ST.   LUKE.  6C3 

Ciroik.  Wl-  ni!ij-  npply  to  llic  nposllcs  and  evangelists,  the  depositaries  of  this  treas- 
ure, wliat  Diotiysius  of  Ilulicariias.sus  says  of  llie  [loineric  lof^ograpliers  :  "  They  ilis- 
liibuteil  (heir  narratives  over  nations  ami  eities,  not  always  reproducing  tlicni  in  tho 
same  order,  but  always  haviuii;  iu  view  theoneconiniDn  aim,  toniakoknowu  all  tliose 
memorials,  so  far  as  they  had  been  preserved,  without  addition  and  without  loss."  * 
I^asil  the  Great  reports  a  similar  fact  :  down  to  his  time  (four  h  century)  the  Cluirch 
possessed  no  written  liturgy  for  the  Iluly  Supper  —  the  sacramental  prayers  and 
fonnuhe  were  transmiltel  by  unwritten  instruction.!  And  was  not  the  immense  store 
of  Tadmudic  traditions,  which  forms  a  whole  library,  conveyed  for  ages  solely  by 
oral  tradition? 

IIow  was  the  trausilicn  made  from  oral  evangelization  to  written  compilation? 
The  most  natural  conjc<lure,  adopted  by  men  like  Schleiermacher,  Xeander,  and 
even  Bleck,  is  that  tlie}'  beg:m  by  writing,  not  a  Oospel — that  would  have  appeared 
too  gieat  an  nndcrtaking — liut  detached  desciiptions  and  discouises.  It  was  a  hear- 
ers who  desired  to  preserve  accurately  what  he  had  heard,  an  evangelist  who  sought 
to  reproduce  his  message  more  failhfuily.  At  a  time  when  books  of  i)rophecy  were 
composed  under  the  names  of  all  the  ancient  Israelitish  personages  (Enoch,  Esdras, 
etc.),  when  collections  (  f  apocryphal  letters  were  palmed  off  on  the  ancient  Greek 
philosophers — a  Ileraclilus,  for  example  J— who  would  be  astonished  to  find  that, 
among  the  fellow-laboiers  and  hearers  of  the  apostles,  there  were  some  who  set  them- 
selves to  put  in  writing  certain  acts  and  certain  discourses  of  the  man  whose  life  and 
death  were  moving  the  world  ?  Those  first  compcsitions  might  have  been  written  in 
Aramaic  and  iu  Greek,  at  Jerusalem,  Anlioch,  or  any  other  of  the  lettered  cities 
where  the  Gospel  flourished. 

These  adixrmria,  or  detached  accounts  taken  from  the  history  of  Jesus,  were 
soon  gathered  mti)  colltctions  more  or  less  complete.  Such  were  probably  the  writ- 
ings of  the  t^olKo'l  mentioned  in  Luke's  prologue.  They  were  not  organic  works,  all 
the  parts  of  which  were  regulated  by  one  idea,  like  our  Gospels,  and  so  they  are  lost 
—  they  were  accidental  compilations,  simple  collections  of  anecdotes  or  discourses  ; 
but  those  works  had  their  imitortance  as  a  second  stage  in  the  development  of  Gospel 
historiography,  and  a  transition  to  the  higher  stage.  Thus  were  collected  the 
materials  which  were  afterward  elaborated  by  the  authors  of  our  .«ynoptic  Gospels. 

In  oral  tradition  thus  formed,  and  tlien  in  those  first  compilations  and  collections 
cf  anecdotes,  do  we  not  possess  a  basis  firm  enough  on  the  one  liand,  and  elastic 
enough  on  the  other,  to  e.vplain  tlie  resemblance  as  well  as  the  diversity  which  pre- 
vails between  our  three  synoptics  ;  and,  in  fine,  to  resolve  that  complicated  problem 
which  defies  every  attempt  at  solution  by  so  unyielding  an  expedient  as  tiiat  of  a  writ- 
ten model  ? 

1.  The  most  striking  feature  of  resemblance  in  the  general  plan,  the  omission  of 
the  journeys  to  Jerusalem,  is  explained,  not  perhaps  full}',  but  at  least  more  easily, 
in  the  way  which  we  propose  than  in  any  other.  Oral  tradition  becoming  condensed 
ill  the  form  of  detached  narratives,  and  afterward  grouped  in  cycles,  the  journeys  tu 
Jerusalem,  which  did  not  lend  themselves  so  easily  to  the  end  of  popular  evangeliza- 
lion  as  the  varied  scenes  and  very  simple  discourses  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  were 

*  "  Jiidic.  de  Tliueyd."  ii.  p.  138.  edit.  Sylhurg  (quoted  by  Gieseler). 
+  "De  Spir.  Sand.''  c.  27. 

X  Bernays,  "Die  Ileraclilisrhen  Briefu"  (three  of  which,  according  to  this  critic, 
belong  to  the  first  ceiiluiy  of  our  era). 


564  COMMENTARY    0:s    ST.   LUKE. 

neglected.  The  matter  took  shape  ■without  them  ;  and  so  much  the  more  because 
they  did  not  enter  into  any  of  the  groups  which  were  formed.  When  ihe  tradition 
was  compiled,  llils  element  in  it  was  wanting,  and  the  gap  was  not  tilled  up  till  later, 
when  tb'i  narrative  of  an  eye-witness  (.John)  gave  anew  delineation  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  in  a  manner  completely  independent  of  the  traditional  elaboration. 

2.  If  our  narratives  have  such  a  traditional  origin  as  we  have  IcQicated,  Ave  can 
easily  explain  both  the  ideutical  series  of  accounts  which  we  sometimes  meet  in  our 
synoptics,  and  the  transposition  of  particular  accounts. 

3.  The  resemblances  in  the  substance  of  the  narratives  are  explained  quite  natu- 
rally by  the  objectivity  of  the  facts  which  left  its  stamp  on  the  recital  ;  andthedififer- 
ences,  by  the  involuntary  modifications  due  to  oral  reproduction  and  to  the  multi- 
plicity of  written  compends.  There  is  one  thing  especially  which  is  naturally 
accounted  for  in  this  way.  We  have  again  and  again  remarked,  especially  in  the 
accounts  of  miracles,  the  contrast  w^hich  obtains  between  the  diversity  of  the  histori- 
cal framework  in  the  three  synoptics,  and  the  sameness  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  during 
thecouiseof  the  action.  This  contrast  is  inexpli(!able  if  the  writings  are  aerived 
from  one  another  or  from  a  written  source.  It  is  easily  understood  from  our  view  ; 
the  style  of  the  sayings  cf  Jesus  had  become  more  ligidly  fixed  in  traditional  narra- 
tion than  the  external  details  of  the  Gospel  scenes. 

There  remain  the  resemblances  of  style  between  the  three  writings— the  identical 
Clauses,  the  common  expressions,  the  syntactical  forms  or  grammatical  analogies. 
If  oral  tradition  became  formed  and  formulated,  as  we  have  said,  if  it  was  early  com- 
piled in  a  fragmentary  waj',  if  those  compilations  were  used  by  the  authors  of  our 
Gospels,  those  resemuiances  no  longer  present  auj'thing  inexplicable,  and  the  dilfer- 
ence  which  alternate  with  them  at  every  instant  no  longer  require  to  be  explained  by 
forced  expedients.  The  two  phenomena,  which  are  contradictory  on  every  other 
hypothesis,  come  into  juxtaposition,  and  harmonize  naturally. 

Starting  from  this  general  point  of  view,  let  us  seek  to  trace  the  special  origin  of 
each  of  our  three  synoptics.  The  traditions  argee  in  ascribing  to  Matthew  the  first 
Gospel  compilation  which  proceeded  from  an  apostle.  It  was,  according  to  Irenaeus, 
"  at  the  time  when  Peter  and  Paul  were  together  founding  the  Church  at  Rome" 
(from  63-64),  or,  according  to  Eusebius,  "  when  Matthew  was  preparing  to  go  to 
preach  to  other  nations"  (after  60),  that  this  apostle  took  pen  in  hand.  This  approx- 
imate date  (60-64)  is  confirmed  by  the  warning,  in  the  form  of  a  parenthesis,  which 
we  fiud  inserted  b^''  the  evangelist  in  the  eschatological  discourse  of  Jesus  (24  :  15). 
Our  Lord  declares  to  the  disciples  the  sign  by  which  the  Christians  of  Judea  shall 
jecugnize  the  time  for  fleeing  from  the  Holy  Laod  ;  and  ]Mattheu'  adds  here  this 
leinaikable  7iota  bene:  "Whoso  readeth,  let  him  understand."*  This  parenthesis 
contains  the  proof  that,  when  this  discourse  was  compiled,  the  .Judeo-Christian 
believers  had  not  j'et  retired  beyond  the  Jordan,  as  they  did  about  the  year  66.  What 
was  the  writiug  of  Matthew  ?  Was  it  a  complete  Gospel  ?  The  reasons  which  we 
have  indicated  rather  lead  us  think  that  the  apostle  had  compiled  in  Aramaic  the 
great  bodies  of  discourses  containing  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  as  it  had  been  put  into 
form  by  tradition,  with  a  view  to  the  edification  of  the  flocks  in  Palestine.  It  is 
those  bodies  of  discourses  which  are  the  characteristic  feature  of  our  first  Gospel  ;  it^ 

*  This  warning  is  not  connected  with  the  quotation  from  Daniel,  and  forms  no 
part  of  the  discnun^e  of  Jesus  ;  this  appears  from  Mark  (where  the  quotation  from 
Daniel  is  unauthentic). 


COMJIENTARY    ON    ST.   LIKE.  565 

is  round  this  dominnnl  clement  that  the  hook  appears  to  he  organized  all  thrcuiih. 
The  narrative  part  is  an  addition  to  tliis  original  theme.  It  was  not  composed  in 
Ilehrew  ;  the  style  dots  not  admit  of  this  supposition.  Its  date  is  a  little  later  tlian 
that  of  the  apostolic  writing.  For  the  preshyter,  a  native  of  Palestine,  who  inHtnicled 
Papias  rememhered  a  time  when,  in  the  churches  of  Judea,  they  l)ad  no  Creek 
translation  of  the  "  Disc(jurscs  of  Jesus"  (the  Logia),  and  when  every  evangelist 
reproduced  them  in  Greek  rii'ii  voce,  an  he  could.  What  hand  composed  this  historical 
narrative,  in  the  framework  of  which  the  whole  contents  ot  the  Logia  have  been  ekil- 
fully  distrib\ited  ?  Is  it  not  most  natural  to  suppose  that  one  of  ^Matthew's  di.sciples 
■while  reproducing  his  Logia  in  Greek,  set  them  in  a  complete  narrative  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  and  borrowed  the  latter  from  the  traditional  recital  in  such  form  as  he  had  fre- 
quently heard  it  from  the  mouth  of  that  apostic  ?  This  tradition  had  taken,  in  the 
hands  of  Matthew,  that  lemarkably  summaiy  and  concise  character  which  we  have 
so  often  observed  in  the  tirst  Gospel.  For  his  aim  was  not  to  describe  the  scenes,  but 
merely  to  demonstrate  by  tacts  the  thesis  to  which  his  apostolic  activity  seems  to 
haee  been  devoted:  Jesus  is  THE  CHRIST.  The  Logia  seems  also  to  have  been 
arranged  with  a  view  to  this  thesis.  Jesus  tlie  legislator,  Matt.  5-7  ;  the  king,  chap. 
13  ;  the  judge,  chap.  24,  25  ;  consequently  THE  MESSIAH.     Comp.  Matt.  1  :  1. 

Mark,  according  to  tradition,  wrote  during,  or  shortly  after,  Peter's  sojourn  at 
Rome,  about  G4  ;  consequently  almost  at  the  same  time  as  Matthew.  So,  like  Mat- 
thew, be  records  in  the  eschatological  discourse  the  warning  which  it  was  customary 
in  Palestine  to  add  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding  the  flight  beyond  the  Jordan 
(13  :  14).  The  materials  of  his  Gospel  must  have  been  borrowed,  according  to  tradi- 
tion, from  the  accounts  of  Peter,  whom  Mark  accompanied  on  his  travels.  Accord- 
ingl}',  he  could  not  have  used  our  first  Gospel,  which  was  not  j'ct  in  existence,  nor 
even  the  Logia,  which  could  not  yet  have  reached  him.  How,  then,  are  we  to 
explain  the  very  special  connections  which  it  is  easy  to  establish  between  his  writing 
and  the  first  Gospel  ?  We  have  seen  that  this  latter  writing  has  preserved  to  us 
essentially  the  great  didactic  compositions  which  are  the  fruit  of  Matthew's  labor, 
but  set  in  a  consecutive  narrative.  From  whom  did  this  narrative  proceed  ?  In- 
directly from  3Iatthew,  no  doubt ;  but  in  the  first  place  from  Peter,  whose  iutluence 
had  certainly  preponderated  in  the  formation  of  the  apostolic  tradition  in  all  that 
concerned  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  The  only  difference  between  the  first 
two  Gospels  therefore  is,  that  while  the  one  gives  us  the  apostolic  system  of  evangeliza- 
tion in  the  summary  and  systematic  form  to  which  it  had  been  reduced  by  the  labors 
of  -Matthew,  the  other  presents  it  to  us  in  all  its  primitive  freshness,  fulness,  and  sim- 
plicity, as  it  had  been  heard  from  the  lips  of  Peter,  with  the  addition  of  one  or  two  of 
the  great  discourses  (chaps.  3  and  13)  due  to  the  labors  of  Matthew  (chaps.  13  and  24), 
and  with  which  Murk  had  long  been  acquainted  as  a  hearer  of  the  Palestinian 
preaching.*  The  special  differences  between  the  two  compilations  are  explained  by 
the  variable  element  which  is  always  inevitable  in  oral  evangelization. f    It  may  thus 

*  If  Mark  knew  those  discourses  so  well,  he  must  have  been  acquainted  with  Iho 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Its  place  even  is  clear!}'  indicated  in  his  narrative  (between 
vers.  19  and  20  of  chap.  3).  The  only  reason  for  his  omilling  this  discourse  must 
have  been,  that  it  did  not  fit  in  sutficiently  to  the  plan  of  his  Gospel,  intended,  as  it 
■was,  for  Gentile  readers. 

f  We  can  understand  the  series  of  evidences  by  which  Klostermann  has  been  led 
to  regard  the  text  of  Mark  as  merely  that  of  Matthew  enriched  with  scholia  due  to 
the  narratives  of  Peter.  But  what  is  to  be  made  of  the  series  of  opposing  evidences 
■which  we  have  so  often  enumerated  V 


566  COMMEKTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

be  concluded  that  the  first  Gospel  contains  the  work  of  Matthtw,  completed  by  the 
tradition  which  emanated  from  Peter  ;  and  the  second,  the  tradition  of  Peter,  com- 
pleted i)y  means  of  some  parts  of  Matthew's  woik. 

Luke,  according  to  the  tradition  and  evidences  which  we  have  collected,  must 
have  composed  his  history  in  Greece  at  the  same  time  when  Mattliew  was  compiiing 
his  L.)gia  in  Piti(sline,  and  Mark  the  narratives  of  Peter  at  Rome.  If  so,  it  is  per- 
ftctly  clear  that  he  did  not  know  and  use  those  writings  ;  and  this  is  what  ex- 
egesis demonstrates.  From  what  sources,  then,  has  he  drawn  ?  He  has  worked — as 
appears  from  our  study  of  his  book— on  written  documents,  mostly  Aramaic.  But 
l\ov/  are  we  to  explain  the  obvious  connection  in  ceitain  parts  between  those  docu- 
ments and  the  text  of  the  other  two  Syn.  ?  It  Is  enough  to  repeat  that  those  docu- 
ments, at  least  those  which  related  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus  from  His  baptism  on- 
ward, were  compilations  of  that  same  apostolic  tradition  which  forms  the  basis  of 
our  first  Iw.)  Gospels.  The  relationship  between  our  three  Gospels  is  thus  explained. 
The  Aramaic  language,  in  which  the  most  of  Luke's  documents  were  written,  leads 
to  the  supposition  that  they  dated,  like  those  from  which  the  same  author  composed 
the  first  part  of  the  Acts,  from  the  earliest  times  of  apostolic  evangelization.  At  that 
period  the  didactic  exposition  of  .Jesus'  doctrine  w'as  probably  not  j'et  concentrated 
and  grouped,  as  it  was  later,  about  some  great  points  of  lime  and  some  definite  sub- 
jects. Tradition  preserved  many  more  traces  of  the  various  circumstances  which  had 
furnished  our  Lord  with  a  text  for  His  instructions.  Hence  those  precious  introduc- 
tions of  Luke,  and  that  exquisite  appropriateness  which  lends  a  new  charm  to  the 
discourses  which  he  has  preserved  to  us.  As  to  the  general  concatenation  of  the  Gos- 
pel events  which  we  admire  in  Luke,  he  owes  it  undoubtedly  to  special  information. 
It  is  of  such  sources  of  information  thit  he  speaks  in  his  prologue,  and  which  en- 
abled him  to  reconstruct  that  broken  chain  of  which  tradition  had  preserved  only  the 
rings. 

Thus  it  is  that  we  understand  the  relations  and  origin  of  the  synoptics.  Is  this 
explanation  chargeable  v.ith  compromising  the  Gospel  history,  by  making  its  accu- 
racy depend  on  a  mode  of  transmission  so  untrustworthy  as  tradition  ?  Yes,  if  tho 
period  at  which  we  are  led  to  fix  the  compilation  of  those  oral  accounts  was  much 
more  advanced.  But  from  60  to  65,  tradition  was  still  under  the  control  of  those  who 
had  contributed  to  form  it,  and  of  a  whole  generation  contemporary  with  the  facts 
related  (1  Cor.  15  :  6,  written  in  58).  In  those  circumstances,  alterations  might  afiect 
the  surface,  not  the  substance  of  the  history. 

I  would  take  the  liberty  of  closing  this  important  subject  with  an  apologetic  re- 
mark. There  is  perhaps  no  more  decisive  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  than  the  different  forms  in  which  they  are  transmitted  to  us  by  Matthew  and 
Luke.  An  artificially  composed  discourse,  like  those  which  Livy  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  his  heroes,  is  one  utterance  ;  but  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  as  they  are  presented  to 
us  by  the  two  evangelists,  are  broken  and  fragmentary.  Moreover,  those  similar 
materials,  which  appear  in  both  in  entirely  different  contexts,  must  necessarily  be 
more  ancient  than  those  somewhat  artificial  wholes  in  which  we  now  find  them. 
Those  identical  materials  put  to  use  in  different  constructions  must  have  belonged  to 
an  older  edifice,  of  which  they  are  merely  the  debris. 


COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE.  567 

CHAPTER    IV. 

» 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CnURCH. 

To  get  rid  of  the  Mosaic  revelation,  ralionalism  has  assumed  an  original  contrast 
between  Elolilsin  and  Jehovisnl,  and  sought  to  make  the  history  of  Israel  the  pro- 
gressive solution  of  ihis  antagonism  ;  and  in  (he  same  way,  to  reduce  tiie  appearing 
of  Christianity  to  the  level  of  natural  events,  the  Tiibiugen  school  has  set  up  a  contrast 
■between  apostolic  Judeo-Chrisliauity  and  the  Chrit^tianity  of  Paul— a  contrast  the  grad- 
ual solution  of  which  is  made  to  explain  the  course  of  history  during  the  first  two 
centuries.  Reuss  and  Nicolas,  without  altogether  sharing,  especially  the  first,  in  this 
point  of  view,  nevertheless  retain  the  idea  of  a  conflict  between  the  two  frac- 
tions of  the  CImrch.  profound  enough  to  lead  the  author  of  the  Acts  to  the 
belief  that  he  must  seek  to  disguise  it  by  a  very  inaccurate  exposition  of  the 
views  and  conduct  of  his  master  Paul.  But  if  we  cannot  credit  this  writer  in  re- 
gard to  things  in  which  he  took  part,  how  are  we  to  found  on  his  narrative  when  he 
describes  much  older  events,  such  as  those  which  are  contained  in  his  Gospel  ?  The 
importance  of  the  question  is  obvious.  Let  us  attempt,  before  closing,  to  throw  light 
upon  it. 

To  prove  the  antagonism  in  question,  the  Tubingen  school  in  the  first  place  ad- 
vances the  different  tendencies  which  are  said  to  be  observable  in  the  Gospels.  But 
it  is  remarkable  that,  to  demonstrate  this  conflict  of  tendencies,  Baur  was  forced  to 
give  up  the  attempt  of  dealing  with  known  quantities,  our  canonical  Gospels,  and  to 
have  recourse  to  the  supposition  of  previous  writings  of  a  much  more  xjrouounced 
dogmatic  character,  which  formed  the  foundation  both  of  our  Matthew  and  of  our 
Luke,  to  wit,  a  primitive  Matthew,  exclusively  legal  and  particularistic,  and  a  primi- 
tive Luke,  absolutely  universalistic  and  autiuomian.  Thus  they  begin  by  ascribing 
to  our  Gospels  an  exclusive  tendency  ;  then,  not  finding  it  in  the  books  as  wo  have 
them,  they  make  them  over  again  according  to  the  preconceived  idea  which  they  have 
formed  of  them.  Such  is  the  vicious  circle  in  which  this  criticism  moves.  The 
h3'pothesis  of  an  autiuomian  *  proto-Luke  has  been  completely  refuted  within  the 
Tubingen  school  itself  ;  we  may  therefore  leave  that  supposition  aside.  There  re- 
mains only  the  proto-Matthcw.  This  is  the  last  plank  to  which  Ililgenfeld  still  clings. 
He  discovers  the  elements  of  the  primitive  Matthew  in  the  fragments  which  remain 
to  us  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  He  alleges  a  natural  and  gradual  transformation 
of  this  writing  in  the  direction  of  universalism  (the  product  being  our  canonical  Mat- 
thew) ;  afterward  Mark,  and  then  Luke,  contmued  and  completed  the  transformation 
of  the  Gospel  history  into  pure  Paulinism.  But  this  construction  is  not  less  arbitrary 
than  that  of  Baur.  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  as  we  have  seen,  has  all  the-  charac- 
teristics of  an  amplified  and  derived  work,  and  cannot  be  the  basis  of  our  Matthew. 
Even  Volkmar  treats  this  Judaizing  proto- Matthew  as  a  chimera,  no  less  than  the 
antinomian  proto-Luke.  And  what  of  himself?  He  charges  our  three  synoptics 
with  being  Paulinist  writings,  the  sole  Judaizing  antagonist  to  which  is  .  .  .  the 
Apocalypse.  The  work  of  John,  such,  according  to  Volkmar,  is  the  true  type  of 
legal  Judeo-Christiauity,  the  document  of  which  Baur  seeks  in  vain  iu  the  primitive 

*  Our  author  uses  this  word,  like  some  others,  not  in  its  modern,  but  its  exact 
sense  :  the  sense  of  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  ritual. — J.  H. 


568  COMMENTARY    0]^    ST.   LUKE. 

Matthew,  which  is  invented  by  himself  to  meet  the  exigency  of  the  case.  But  what  !  we 
ask  Volkmar,  can  you  regard  as  strictly  legal  a  writing  which  calls  the  Jewish  people 
the  sjmagogue  of  Satan  (Key.  3  :  9),  and  which  celebrates  with  enthusiasm  and  in  the 
most  brilliant  colors  the  entrance  into  heaven  of  innumerable  converts  of  every  nation, 
and  tribe,  and  people,  and  tongue,  who  were  notoriously  the  fruits  of  the  laborti  of 
tha  Apostle  Paul  ;  which  proclaims  aloud  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus-Mes- 
siah, that  perpetual  blasphemy  to  the  ears  of  the  Jews  ;  and  which,  instead  of  deriv- 
ing salvation  from  circumcision  and  works,  makes  it  descend  from  the  throne  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb,  of  pure  grace  through  faith  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  without  any 
legal  condition  whatever?  Such  Judeo-Christianity,  assuredly,  is  a  Paulinism  of 
pretty  strong  quality.  And  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  would  have  asked  nothing  bet- 
ter than  to  see  it  admitted  by  all  his  adversaries.  He  would  very  quickly  have  laid 
down  his  arms.* 

Baur  further  alleges  the  authentic  epistles  of  Paul  (the  four  great  ones),  especially 
the  second  chapter  of  Galatians.  The  following  are  the  contents  of  the  passage. 
Paul  gives  an  account  of  a  private  conference  (kct'  i(5Lav  6i)  which  he  had  with  those 
of  the  apostles  who  enjoj^ed  the  highest  consideration  (roi?  SoKovai),  in  which  he  stated 
to  them  {avede/iTji')  his  mode  of  preaching  among  the  Gentiles — a  method  which  they 
so  fully  approved,  that  Titus,  an  uncircumcised  Gentile,  was  immediately  welcomed 
and  treated  at  Jerusalem  as  a  member  of  the  Church  (ver.  23).  And  if  he  held  out 
in  this  case,  though  circumcision  was  in  his  view  merely  an  external  rite,  and  morally 
indifferent  (1  Cor.  7  :  18,  19),  it  was  not  from  obstinacy,  but  because  of  false  brethren 
unawares  brought  in  {(ha  6i  toU  TzapeiauKTovi  ipevSaSsldovi)  who  claimed  the  light  to 
impose  it,  and  who  thus  gave  to  this  matter  the  character  of  a  question  of  principle 
(vers.  4,  5).  Then,  from  those  intruded  false  brethren,  Paul  returns  to  the  apostles, 
whom  he  contrasts  with  them  (0.7:0  6i  tuv  Sokowtuv),  and  who,  that  is,  the  apostles, 
added  no  new  condition  to  his  statement  (oidiv  TrpoaavsdevTo,  referring  to  the  uveOe/n/v, 
ver.  2),  but  recognized  in  him  the  man  called  to  labor  specially  among  the  Gentiles, 
as  in  Peter  the  man  specially  charged  with  the  apostolate  to  the  Jews  ;  and  on  this 
basis  they  associated  themselves  with  him  and  his  work,  by  giving  him  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship  (vers.  6-10).  That  there  was  any  shade  of  difference  between  him  and 
the  Twelve,  Paul  does  not  say  ;  we  may  conclude  it,  however,  from  this  division  of 
labor  in  which  the  conference  terminated.  But  that  this  shade  was  an  opposition  of 
principle,  and  that  the  Twelve  were  radically  at  one  with  the  false  brethren  brought 
in,  as  Baur  seeks  to  prove,  is  what  the  passage  itself  absolutely  denies.  The  contrary 
also  appears  from  the  second  fact  related  by  Paul  in  this  chapter — his  contention  with 
Peter  at  Autioch.  For  when  Peter  ceases  all  at  once  to  mingle  and  eat  with  the 
Cliristians  from  among  the  Gentiles,  for  what  does  Paul  rebuke  him  ?  For  not  walk- 
ing uprightlj^  for  acting  hypocritically,  that  is  to  say,  for  being  unfaithful  to  his  real 
conviction,  which  evidently'  assumes  that  Peter  has  the  same  conviction  as  Paul  nim- 
self.     And  this  is  a  passage  which  is  to  prove,  accordmg  to  Baur,  the  opposition  of 

*  Chap.  2  :  29  is  alleged,  where  a  woman  is  spoken  of  who  teaches  to  eat  meats 
sacrificed  to  idols,  and  to  commit  impurity — a  woman  who,  it  is  said,  represents  the 
doctrine  of  Paul.  But  to  teach  to  eat  meats  offered  in  sacrifice  is  to  stimulate  to  the 
eating  of  them  as  such,  that  is  to  say,  basely  and  wickedly  outraging  the  scruples  of 
the  weak,  or  even  with  the  view  of  escaping  some  disagreeable  consequence,  such  as 
persecution,  making  profession  of  paganism.  Now  Paul,  1  Cor.  10,  prescribes  ex- 
actly the  opposite  line  of  conduct  ;  aud  as  to  impurity,  we  have  1  Cor.  6.  It  is  liber- 
tinism and  not  Paulinisiii  which  is  here  stigmatized, 


COMMENTARY   ON   ST.  LUKE.  5G9 

tjrinciple  between  Paul  iind  Peter.  That  here  again  there  is  a  shade  of  difference  im- 
plied bi'twoL'n  Paul  and  Peter,  and  even  betweeu  Peter  and  Jauifs  ("  before  that  cer- 
tain came  from  James"),  1  am  not  concerned  to  deny.  But  no  opposition  of  princi- 
ple between  Peter  and  Paul  is  compatible  with  this  account.  IJaurhas  further  sou"ht 
to  rest  his  view  on  the  enumeration  of  the  parties  formed  at  Corinth.  Accordiii"-  to 
1  Cor.  1  :  12,  there  were  believers  in  this  city  who  called  themselves  some  of  Paul, 
some  of  Apollos,  some  of  Cephas,  others  of  Christ.  Baur  reasons  thus  :  As  the  first 
two  parties  differed  only  by  a  shade,  it  must  have  been  the  same  with  the  latter  two  ; 
and  as  it  appears  from  3  Cor.  10  :  7,  11  :  22,  that  those  who  called  themselves  of 
Christ  were  ardent  Judaizers  who  wished  to  impose  the  law  on  the  Gentiles,  the  same 
conviction  should  be  ascribed  to  those  of  Peter,  and  consequently  to  Peter  himself. 
But  the  very  precise  enumeration  of  Paul  obliges  us,  on  the  contrary',  to  ascribe  to 
each  of  the  four  parties  mentioned  a  distinct  standpoint  ;  and  if,  as  appears  from  2 
Cor.,  those  who  are  Christ's  are  really  Judaizers,  enemies  of  Paul,  the  contrast  be- 
tween them  and  those  of  Cephas  proves  precisely  that  Peter  and  his  party  were  not 
confounded  with  them  ;  which  corresponds  with  the  contrast  established  in  Gal.  2 
between  the  false  brethren  brought  in  and  the  apostles,  especially  Petqr.  The  epistles 
of  St.  Paul,  therefore,  do  not  in  the  least  identify  the  Twelve  with  the  Judaizers  who 
opposed  Paul  ;  consequently  they  exclude  the  idea  of  any  opposition  of  principle  be- 
tween apostolic  Christianity  and  that  of  Paul. 

What,  then,  to  conclude,  was  the  real  state  of  things  ?  Behind  Judeo-Christianity 
and  the  Christianity  of  the  Gentiles  there  is  Christ,  the  source  whence  everything  in 
the  Church  proceeds.  This  is  the  unity  to  which  we  must  ascend.  During  Ills 
earthly  life,  Jesus  personally  kept  the  law  ;  He  even  declared  that  He  did  not  come 
to  abolish,  but  to  fulfil  it.  On  the  other  hand,  He  does  not  scruple  to  call  Himself 
the  Lord  of  Vie  Sabbath,  to  pronounce  as  morally  null  all  the  Levitical  ordinances  re- 
garding the  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  meats  (Matt.  15),  to  compare  fasting  and 
the  whole  legal  system  to  a  worn-out  garment,  which  He  is  careful  not  to  patch,  be- 
cause He  comes  rather  to  substitute  a  new  one  in  its  place.  He  predicted  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple,  an  event  which  involved  the  abolition  of  the  w-hole  ceremonial  sys- 
tem. Thus,  from  the  example  and  doctrine  of  Jesus  two  opposite  conclusions  might 
be  drawn,  the  one  in  favor  of  maintaining,  the  other  of  abolishing,  the  Mosaic  law. 
It  was  one  of  thojse  questions  which  was  to  be  solved  by  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit 
(.John  16  :  12,  13).  After  Pentecost,  the  Twelve  naturally  persevered  in  the  line  of 
conduct  traced  by  the  Lord's  example  ;  and  how  otherwise  could  they  have  fulfilled 
thei'"  mission  to  Israel?  Yet,  over  against  the  growiag  obduracy  of  the  nation, 
Stephen  begins  to  emphasize  the  latent  spirituality  of  the  Gospel.  There  follow  the 
foundation  of  the  church  of  Antioch  and  the  first  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  Could  the 
thougnt  be  entertained  of  subjecting  those  multitudes  of  baptized  Gentiles  to  the  sys- 
tem of  the  law?  The  apostles  had  not  yet  had  the  opportunity  of  pronouncing  on 
this  point.  For  themselves,  and  for  the  converts  among  the  Jews,  they  kept  up  the 
Mosaic  rites  as  a  national  institution  which  must  continue  till  God  Himself  should 
free  them  from  its  j'oke  b}'  some  positive  manifestation  or  b}'  the  return  of  the  Mes- 
siah ;  but  as  to  the  Gentiles,  they  probably^  never  thought  of  imposing  it  upon  them. 
The  question  had  no  sooner  occurred,  than  God  enlightened  them  by  the  vision  of 
Peter  (Acts  10).  But  they  were  not  absolute  masters  at  Jerusalem.  There  there  were 
many  priests  and  elders  of  the  Phari-sees  (Acts  6  :  7,  15  :  5)  who  professed  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  who,  from  the  Height  of  their  rabbinical  science  and  theological  erudition, 


570  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.   LUKE. 

regarded  the  apostles  with  a  sort  of  disdain.  On  the  one  hand,  they  were  pleased 
with  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles  ;  the  God  of  Israel  vras  thereby 
becoming  the  God  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  whole  world  was  accepting  the  moral  sov- 
ereignty of  the  children  of  Abraham.  Bui,  in  order  that  the  end  might  be  fully  at- 
tained, and  their  ambition  satisfied,  it  was  of  course  necessary  that  the  new  converts 
should  be  incorporated  with  Israel,  and  that  with  baptism  they  should  receive  ciicum- 
cision.  Only  on  this  condition  was  the  widespread  proseljlism  of  Paul  acceptable  to 
them.  "  If  I  preach  circumcision,"  says  Paul,  alluding  to  this  class,  "  the  offence  of 
the  cross  is  ceased  "  (Gal.  5:11).  That  is  to  say,  if  only  I  granted  them  circumcision, 
they  w^ould  concede  tn  me  even  the  cross.  It  is  easy  to  understand  why  Paul  calls 
them  false  brethren,  intruders  into  the  Church. 

There  were  thus  really  two  distinct  camps  among  the  Christians  of  Jewish  origin, 
according  to  the  book  of  Acts  as  well  as  according  to  Paul  himself :  those  who  made 
circumcision  in  the  case  of  Gentile  converts  a  condition  of  salvation  ;  and  those  who 
while  preserving  it  in  the  case  of  themselves  and  their  children  as  a  national  observ- 
ance, exempted  the  Gentiles  from  its  obligation  (comp.  especially  Acts  6  :  7,  11  :  2. 
15  :  1-5,  24,  with  11  :  18,  22,  25  ;  15  :  10,  11,  19-2r.  with  Gal.  23).  This  last  passage, 
which  Baur  has  used  to  prove  that  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  was  a  pure  romance,  on 
the  contrary  confirms  the  contents  of  Luke's  account  at  every  point.  At  the  public 
assembly  described  by  Luke,  to  which  Paul  alludes  when  relating  the  private  confer- 
ence (/tar'  I6tav  Je,  Gal.  2  :  2)  which  he  had  with  the  apostles,  it  was  decided  :  1st. 
That  converts  from  among  the  Gentiles  were  not  at  all  subject  to  circumcision  and 
the  law  ;  2d.  Ths.t  the  stahis  quo  was  maintained  for  Judeo-Christians  (no  one  exacted 
the  contrary)  :  3^.  That,  to  facilitate  union  between  the  two  different  elements  of 
M^hich  the  Church  was  composed,  the  Gentiles  should  accept  certain  restrictions  on 
thc:!ir  liberty,  by  abstaining  from  various  usages  which  were  peculiaily  repugnant  to 
Jewish  national  feeling.  These  restrictions  are  nowhere  presented  as  a  matter  of  sal- 
vation ;  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  do  well,"  prove  that  all  that  is  intended  is  a  simple 
counsel,*  but  one  the  observance  of  which  is  nevertheless  indispensable  (eirdvayKsi)  for 
the  union  of  the  two  parties.  Thus  presented,  they  could  perfectly  well  be  accepted 
by  Paul,  who,  in  case  of  necessitj%  would  have  admitted,  according  to  Gal.  2,  even 
the  circumcision  of  Titus,  if  it  had  been  demanded  of  him  on  this  understanding. 
But  there  remained  in  practice  difficulties  which  certainly  were  not  foreseen,  and 
Avhich  were  not  long  in  appearing.  ForPalestine,wherethe  Judeo-Christians  formed 
churches  free  from  every  Gentile  element,  the  compromise  of  .Jerusalem  was  sufficient. 
But  where,  as  at  Antioch,  the  Church  was  mixed,  composed  of  Jewish  elders  and 
Gentile  elders,  how  fettered  did  the  daily  relations  still  remain  between  parties,  the 
one  of  whom  professed  to  remain  strictly  faithful  to  legal  observances,  while  the 
others  polluted  themselves  every  instant  in  the  eyes  of  the  former  by  contact  with 
unclean  objects  and  the  use  of  meats  prepared  without  any  regard  to  Levitical  pre- 
scriptions !  How,  in  such  circumstances,  was  it  possible  to  celebrate  feasts  in  com- 
mon ;  the  Agapse,  for  example,  which  preceded  the  Holy  Supper  ?  When  Peter  ar- 
rived at  Antioch,  he  was  obliged  to  decide  and  to  trace  for  himself  his  line  of  cou- 

*  Zeller  attempts  to  translate  ev  nvpd^eTe  by  :  "  Ye  shall  be  saved."  These  words 
can  only  signify,  "  ye  shall  do  well,"  or  "  it  shall  go  well  with  you."  As  to  the  term 
■Kopveia,  we  think  that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  its  natural  sense,  and  that  this  vice  is  here 
brought  into  prominence  in  so  strange  a  way,  because,  in  the  eyes  of  so  many  Gen- 
tiles.it  passed  for  a  thing  as  indifferent  as  eating  and  drinking  (1  Cor.  6  :  12,  18). 


COMMENTAllY   ON   ST.  LUKE.  571 

duct.  If  lie  remained  literally  fniihfiil  to  the  letter  of  the  coiv^p-oitisp  Ct  Jerusalem, 
there  was  an  end  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  that  city  where  the  gospel  was  flour- 
isliin.:,'.  His  heart  cairied  him.  lie  decided  for  the  opposite  view.  Ue  set  himself  to 
live  with  tlie  Gentiles,  and  to  eat  as  they  did  (Gal.  3  :  14).  But  thereupon  Ihero 
arrived  emissaries  from  .lames,  the  man  who,  iu  tiie  great  assembly,  had  proposer* 
tiie  comi)romise.  They  demonstrated  to  Peter  that,  accordinjj;  to  the  terms  of  this  ar 
rangement.  he  was  iu  fault,  because,  as  a  Jew,  he  should  not  dispense  with  the  ob 
servauce  of  the  law  ;  Barnabas  himself  had  nothing  to  answer.  Tliey  subnulted,  an(J 
■withdrew  from  intercourse  -with  the  Gentiles.  The  fact  was,  that  the  compromise 
had  not  anticipated  the  case  of  mixed  churches,  iu  which  the  two  elements  could 
unite  only  on  one  condition  :  that  Jcirish  Chrint id ns  on  their  side  should  renounce  part 
of  their  legal  observances.  We  can  easily  understand,  even  from  this  point  of  view, 
why  St.  Paul,  in  his  letters,  did  not  insist  ou  this  decree,  which  left  bo  grave  a  prac- 
tical dilticulty  untouched. 

There  prevailed,  therefore,  not  Uco  points  of  view,  as  Baur  alleges,  hut  four  a' 
least  :  Isf.  That  of  the  ultra-legalists,  the  Judaizcrs  properly  so  called,  who  perpet- 
uated the  law  as  a  principle  in  the  gospel.  2d.  That  of  the  Twelve  and  of  the  mod- 
erate Judeo-Christians,  who  persouallj''  observed  the  law  as  an  obliiratory  ordinance, 
but  not  at  all  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  for  in  that  case  they  could  not  have  relojised 
the  Gentiles  from  it.  Among  them  there  existed  two  shades  :  that  of  Peter,  who 
thought  he  might  subordinate  obedience  to  the  law  iu  mixed  churches  to  union  with 
the  Gentile  party  ;  and  that  of  James,  who  wished  to  maintain  the  observance  of  law 
even  in  this  case,  and  at  the  expense  of  union.  3c?.  Paul's  point  of  view,  accordinf 
to  which  the  keeping  of  the  law  was  a  matter  morallj''  indifferent,  and  consequently 
optional,  even  in  the  case  of  Jitdco-Chrintians,  according  to  the  principle  which  he  ex- 
presses :  "  To  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law  ;  to  them  that  are  without 
the  law,  as  without  law  ;  all  things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  save  the  more"  (1  Cor. 
9  :  20,  21).  Aih.  Finally,  an  idtru-Paulme  party,  which  is  combated  hy  the  Apoc- 
alypse and  by  Paul  himself  (1  Cor.  8  and  10  ;  Rom.  14),  which  ridiculed  the  scruple." 
of  the  weak,  and  took  pleasure  in  braving  the  dangers  of  idolatrous  worship,  and 
thus  came  to  excuse  the  most  impure  excesses  (1  Cor.  6  ;  Rev.  2  :  20).  The  two  ex- 
treme points  of  view  differed  in  principle  from  the  intermediate  ones.  But  the  latter 
differed  only  on  a  question  of  ceremonial  observance  in  which,  as  was  recognized  on 
both  sides,  salvation  was  not  involved.  We  may  put  the  difference  in  this  form  : 
the  conscience  of  Paul  derived  this  emancipation  from  the  law  from  the  first  coming 
of  Christ,  while  the  Twelve  expected  it  only  at  His  second  coming. 

What  has  this  state  of  things,  so  nicely  shaded,  in  connnon  with  the  flagrant  anti 
thesis  to  which  Baur  attempts  to  reduce  this  whole  history  ?  As  if  in  such  moral  rev- 
olutions there  was  not  always  a  multitude  of  intermediate  views  between  the  ex- 
tremes !  Let  the  time  of  the  Reformation  be  considered  :  what  a  series  of  view-points 
from  Luther,  and  then  Melancthon  on  to  the  ultra-spiritualists  (the  Sehirannfjeidev), 
without  reckoning  all  the  shades  in  the  two  camps  catholic  and  philosophical  ! 

But  after  having  established,  in  opposition  to  Baur,  the  general  trustworthiness  of 
the  description  given  by  the  author  of  the  Acts,  must  we  abandon  Luke  to  the  criti- 
cisms of  Reuss  and  Nicolas,  leaving  him  charged  by  the  first  with  instances  of  "  con- 
ciliatory reticence,"  and  by  the  second  "  with  a  well-marked  desire  to  bring  the  view* 
of  St.  Paul  into  harmony  with  those  of  the  Judaizing  [a|»ostles]  '?"  The  ground  for 
those  chnrges  is  especially  the  account  Acts  21.  James  declares  to  Paul,  who  has  just 


573  COMMENTAKY   ON   ST.   LUKE. 

arrived  at  Jerusalem,  that  he  has  been  calumniated  to  the  Judeo-Christians  of  Palestine, 
having  it  said  of  him  that  he  seeks  everywhere  to  lead  his  Jewish  converts  to  forsake 
Moses  ;  and  to  prove  the  falsehood  of  this  accusation,  Paul  agrees  to  currj^  out  the 
Nazaritevow  iu  the  temple  with  four  Judeo-Christians.  But  in  what  is  this  conduct, 
which  the  author  of  the  Acts  ascribes  to  Paul,  contrary  to  the  apostle's  principles  as 
he  lays  them  dovvn  in  his  epistles  V  Did  Paul  ever  in  any  place  act  the  fanatical  de- 
stroyer of  the  legal  economy  ?  Can  a  case  be  cited  in  which  he  sought  to  prevail  on 
a  Jewish  Christian  not  to  circumcise  his  children  ?  He  resolutely  refused  to  allow  the 
yoke  of  the  law  to  be  imposed  on  the  Gentiles  ;  but  did  he  ever  seek  to  make  a  Jew 
throw  it  off  ?  At  Antioch,  even,  would  he  have  censured  Peter  as  he  does,  if  the  latter 
had  not  previously  adopted  an  entirely  different  mode  of  acting  Gal.  (2  :  14-18)?  Did 
not  Paul  himself  practise  the  principle  :  to  them  w7io  are  under  the  laic,  as  imder  the 
law  ?  He  could  therefore  in  good  earnest,  as  Luke  relates,  seek  to  prove  to  the  Judeo- 
Cliristians  of  Palestine  that  he  was  moved  by  no  feeling  of  hostility  to  the  law,  and 
that  he  was  far  from  teaching  the  Jews  scattered  over  Gentile  lands  to  abjure  the  law 
and /(^/■sa^•e  Moses. 

The  fundamental  error  of  that  whole  view  which  we  are  combating,  is  its  mistak- 
ing more  or  less  the  powerful  unity  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  What 
would  be  said  of  a  historian  who  should  allege  that  the  Reformation  proceeded  from 
the  conflict  between  the  Lutheran  Church  and  the  Reformed,  and  who  should  oveilook 
the  essential  unity  which  was  anterior  to  that  division  ?  Is  it  not  committing  the 
same  error  to  make  the  Church  proceed  from  a  reconciliation  of  Judeo-Christiauily 
with  Paulinism  ?  But  have  not  those  two  currents,  supposing  them  to  be  as  different 
as  is  alleged,  a  common  source  which  men  affect  to  lay  aside — namely,  Jesus  Christ? 
Is  this  question  of  the  law,  on  which  division  took  place,  the  grand  question  of  the 
N.  T.  ?  Is  not  its  place  secondary  in  compaiison  with  that  of  faith  in  Christ  ?  Was 
it  not  accideutally,  and  on  occasion  of  the  practical  realization  of  the  postulates  of 
faith,  that  the  question  of  the  law  emerged?  And  how  then  could  the  antagonism 
which  manifested  itself  on  this  head  be  the  starting-point  of  the  new  creation  ?  Baur, 
in  order  to  escape  the  true  starting-point,  conceives  an  original  antagonism  between 
two  extreme  tendencies,  which  gradually  approximated,  and  ended,  in  virtue  of  re- 
ciprocal concessions,  by  uniting  and  forming  the  great  Catholic  Church  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century.  We  shall  oppose  history  to  history*,  or  rather  history  to  ro- 
mance, and  we  shall  saj'' :  In  Christ  the  Spirit  remained  enveloped  in  the  form  of  the 
letter.  The  Church  was  founded  ;  within  its  bosom  a  tendency  continued  for  a  tune 
to  keep  up  the  letter  by  the  side  of  the  Spirit  ;  the  other  was  already  prepared  to  sac- 
rifice the  letter  to  the  free  unfolding  of  the  Spirit.  But  they  were  at  one  on  this 
point,  that  for  both  life  was  only  in  the  Spirit.  From  both  sides  there  went  o3  ex- 
treme parties,  as  always  happens,  Judaizers  to  the  right,  Antinomiaus  to  the  left  ;  on 
the  one  hand,  Nazarite  and  Ebionite  communities  landing  in  the  Clementine  Homi- 
lies, which  sought  to  combine  Paul  and  Simon  Magus  in  one  and  the  same  person  ; 
on  the  other,  the  Antinomiau  exaggerations  of  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabus,  and 
even  of  that  to  Diognetus,  terminating  at  length  in  Marciun,  who  believed  the  God 
of  the  Jewish  law  to  be  a  different  one  from  that  of  the  gospel.  Between  those  ex- 
tremes the  Church,  more  and  more  united  from  the  time  that  the  destruction  of  .Jeru- 
salem had  levelled  every  ceremonial  difference  between  Judeo-Christians  and  Gentiles, 
continued  its  march  ;  and  while  casting  forth  from  its  bosom  Ebionism  on  the  one 
side,  and  Marcionism  on  the  other,  it  closed  its  ranks  under  the  fire  of  persecution. 


COMMEMAKY    UN    8T.    LUKK.  673 

and  became  llic  great  Church,  us  it  is  alrc-uly  named  by  CVlsus.  Let  the  documents 
be  studied  imparliall}',  and  it  will  Ik;  secu  wboUier  Ibis  picture  is  not  more  true  to  fact 
than  tliat  of  Baur.* 

And  wbat  place,  tiually.  do  our  four  Gospels  occupy  in  tbis  whole?  They  do  not 
represent  four  different  epochs  or  four  distinct  parlies.  They  each  represent  one  of 
the  sides  of  Christ's  glory  uuveiietl  to  one  of  the  apostles. 

The  hour  of  revelation  to  which  the  second  Gospel  belongs  is  previous  to  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  ;  it  is  the  enlightenment  of  St.  Peter,  as  indicated  by  Jesus 
Himself,  vvhen,  following  up  the  apostle's  profession  ;  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Sou  of 
God,"  He  answers,  "  Flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  The  divme  greatness  of  Jesus,  as  it  was  displayed  during  the 
course  of  His  earthly  life— such  is  the  idea  which  fills,  penetrates,  and  inspires  the 
Gospel  of  Mark. 

The  time  when  that  inspiration  was  bora  which  gave  rise  to  the  first  Gospel  came 
later  ;  it  occuis  in  the  interval  between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  It  is  the  time 
thus  described  by  Luke  (24  :  45) :  "  Then  opened  He  their  understanding,  that  they 
might  understand  the  Scriptures."  Christ,  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  of  prophecy 
— such  is  the  discovery  which  the  spirit  made  to  the  apostles  in  that  hour  of  illumina- 
tioa  ;  the  theocratic  past  stood  out  before  them  in  the  light  of  the  present,  the  present 
in  the  light  of  the  past.  This  is  the  view  which  impelled  Matthew  to  take  the  pen, 
and  dictated  the  writing  which  bears  his  name. 

The  mspiring  breath  of  the  third  Gospel  dates  from  the  times  which  followed 
Pentecost  St.  Paul  marks  this  decisive  moment  with  emotion,  when  he  says  to  tho 
Galatiaus  (1  :  15,  IG  :  "  When  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my  mother's 
■womb  ...  to  reveal  His  Sou  Jesus  Christ  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  Him 
among  the  Gentiles."  Christ,  the  hope  of  glory  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  to  the  Jews  ; 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  given  to  the  world,  and  not  merely  the  son  of  David  granted 
to  Israel— such  was  the  view  contemplated  by  Paul  during  those  three  days  in 
which,  while  his  eyes  were  closed  to  the  light  of  this  world,  his  soul  opened  to  u 
higher  light.  Tliis  light  with  which  St.  Paul  was  illuminated  passed  into  the  work 
of  Luke  ;  thence  it  rays  forth  constantly  within  the  Church. 

The  lot  of  John  fell  to  him  last ;  it  was  the  most  sublime.  "  The  spirit  shall 
glorify  me,"  Jesus  had  said  ;  "  He  shall  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance  what- 
soever 1  have  said  unto  you,  and  He  will  show  you  things  to  come."  Here  was  more 
than  the  work  of  a  day  or  an  hour  ;  it  was  the  work  of  a  whole  life.  In  its  prolonged 
meditations,  his  profound  and  self-collected  heart  passed  in  review  the  sayings  which 
had  gone  forth  from  the  mouth  of  that  blaster  on  whose  bosom  lie  had  rested  and 
discovered  in  them  the  deepest  mystery  of  the  faith,  the  eternal  divinity  of  the  Son  of 
man,  the  Word  made  flesh,  God  in  Christ,  Christ  in  u.s,  we  through  Christ  in  God  ; 
such,  in  three  words,  are  the  contents  of  John's  writings,  especially  of  his  Gospel. 

*  M.  Reuss  attaches  great  importance  to  the  hospitality  which  Paul  meets  with  in 
the  Roman  Church  (Phil.  1),  and  to  the  almost  complete  abandonment  which  he  has 
to  endure  a  little  later  (2  Tim.  4).  But  the  first  passage  merely  furnishes^the  proof 
that  the  event  which  Paul  had  for  a  long  time  been  expecting  (Rom.  IG  :  17-20)— tho 
arrival  of  the  Judaizent  at  Rome— iiad  taken  place.  As  to  the  second  event,  it 
cannot  (if  the  2d  Epistle  to  Timothy  is  authentic,  as  we  believe  it  to  be.  with  M. 
Reuss)  have  taken  place  till  a  second  captivity,  and  after  the  persecution  of  ]Suro  had 
leiupnrarily  dispersed  the  Roman  Church.  It  proves  no  antipathy  whatever  on  the 
pall  of  this  Chuich  to  the  apostle. 


674  COMMENTARY    ON    ST.  LUKE. 

This  view  of  the  relation  between  God,  Christ,  and  believers,  laid  down  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  is  aluuo  capable  of  raising  the  Church  to  its  full  height. 

In  those  four  rays  there  is  contained  all  the  glory  of  Christ.  What  He  was  in  His 
visible  presence,  what  He  is  in  relation  to  the  theocratic  past,  what  He  is  in  relation 
to  the  religious  future  of  the  whole  world,  what  He  is  in  regard  to  the  eternal  union 
of  every  man  with  the  infinite  principle  of  things— such  is  the  discovery  which  the 
Church  has  before  her  in  those  four  writings.  Were  she  to  deprive  herself  of  one  of 
them,  she  would  only  impair  the  honor  of  her  Head,  and  impoverish  herself.  May 
the  Church  therefore  rather  be  the  focus  within  which  those  four  rays  perpetually 
converge,  and  in  which  they  again  become  one,  as  they  were  one  originally  in  the 
life  of  the  Head  ! 


BS2595  .G583  1890 

A  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00059  8906 


DATE  DUE 


HIGHSMITH  #45230 


